ENABLING FLOATING SOLAR

PHOTOVOLTAIC (FPV) DEPLOYMENT

Review of Barriers to FPV Deployment in Southeast
Asia
Sika Gadzanku, Laura Beshilas, and Ursula (Bryn) Grunwald
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

June 2021

A product of the USAID-NREL Partnership

Contract No. AIG-19-2115
 NOTICE

This work was authored, in part, by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), operated by
Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-
AC36-08GO28308. Funding provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
under Contract No. AIG-19-2115. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily represent the views
of the DOE or the U.S. Government, or any agency thereof, including USAID.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable

Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports produced after 1991

and a growing number of pre-1991 documents are available
free via www.OSTI.gov.

Cover photo from iStock 12776646.

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.

ii
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Scott Bartos from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)’s Regional
Development Mission for Asia (RDMA) for funding this work and providing guidance during its
development. We also wish to thank the peer reviewers on this report for their detailed review comments,
insights, and contributions to this report: Nathan Lee, Alexandra Aznar, Andrea Watson, Eric Lockhart,
and Adam Warren of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Zuzana Dobrotkova of the
Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) of the World Bank Group, Céline Paton of the
Solar Energy Research Institute of Singapore (SERIS), and Rashane Sala-Ngarm of USAID RDMA.
Finally, we would like to thank Isabel McCan and Liz Breazeale for their editorial support. All errors and
omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors.

iii
List of Acronyms
ESMAP Energy Sector Management Assistance Program
FIT feed-in tariff
FPV floating solar photovoltaic
LCOE levelized cost of energy
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
O&M operation and maintenance
PV photovoltaic
R&D research and development
RD&D research, development, and deployment
RDMA Regional Development Mission for Asia
RE renewable energy
RET renewable energy technology
REZ renewable energy zone
RPS renewable portfolio standard
SE Asia Southeast Asia
SERIS Solar Energy Research Institute of Singapore
Wp Watt-peak
W-dc Watt-direct current
USAID United States Agency for International Development

iv
Executive Summary
The countries of Southeast Asia (SE Asia) are seeing rapid energy sector transitions, setting ambitious
renewable energy (RE) goals, and, increasingly, exploring floating solar photovoltaic (FPV) and its
potential benefits to diversify their energy mixes (ASEAN 2015). To meet these ambitious goals, as well
as growing energy demand, the countries in the region will likely require significant amounts of new RE
capacity. FPV systems may play a significant role in RE deployment in the region, while providing
additional economic, societal, and environmental benefits. Recent work has identified the potential
benefits of FPV systems to include lower land acquisition and site preparation costs, improved solar PV
performance, and reduced capital costs when FPV is co-located with hydropower. Despite growing
interest in and literature on FPV systems, our understanding of the policy landscape, including the
opportunities and barriers to FPV deployment, remains limited.

The purpose of this work is to address this gap by:

1. Detailing potential barriers to FPV deployment with a focus on economic, environmental,

cultural, regulatory, and technical barriers
2. Discussing best practices that may support FPV deployment.
We reviewed the relevant literature to understand the existing and potential policy landscape for FPV
systems and to understand what policymakers can do to address some of these barriers. This review does
not delve into the technical aspects of FPV systems and is not meant as a recommendation of policy
pathways for FPV deployment. Rather, it is as an initial assessment of potential barriers to FPV
deployment followed by various best practices to consider when addressing these barriers. Our review
revealed a significant research gap in the policy landscape for FPV systems. With the exception of the
World Bank Group, Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) and the Solar Energy
Research Institute of Singapore (SERIS)’s extensive Where Sun Meets Water reports (2019b; 2019a), and
reports from some FPV conferences detailing the policy landscape and potential barriers to FPV
deployment in select countries, there is minimal publicly available information on the policy barriers
facing the FPV industry.

In general, many of the barriers identified in this work (Table ES- 1) stem from insufficient data or
uncertainty concerning financial incentives, policy, the environmental impacts of FPV systems, water
body use and hybrid FPV-hydropower operation rules. Regulatory barriers in the form of uncertain
regulations and unclear environmental approval processes can impact FPV deployment by extending
approval processes and increasing development costs. Cultural barriers, including a lack of public buy-in
and unfavorable public opinion due to perceived visual impacts, competing uses of water bodies, and
previous negative experiences with other RE technologies, may also serve as obstacles to FPV project
deployment. This report also discusses possible solutions based on emerging evidence from current
international best practices (Table ES- 2). These include larger and consistent government support
through funding for research and development (R&D), workforce development, and public education
campaigns, as well as financial incentives. More transparent and straightforward regulations and robust
equipment and installation standards may also help address some of the regulatory barriers. These best
practices may help inform policy considerations for the creation of an enabling policy and regulatory
environment for FPV deployment.

v
 Table ES- 1. Key Barriers to FPV Deployment
Economic • Subsidizing fossil fuels can create an uneven playing field making it difficult for FPV systems to
Barriers compete in the market.
• Phasing out incentives for emerging RE may stall the development of FPV systems.
• Economic policy uncertainty may stall private sector interest in FPV systems.
• Trained workforce shortages raise FPV deployment costs.
Environmental • Uncertainty about FPV ecological impacts may increase public opposition to projects and lengthen
Barriers the environmental review process.
Cultural • Lack of public buy-in of FPV technology due to visual impacts and competing uses of water bodies
Barriers could stall project development.
• Previous negative experiences with RE projects may lead to an unfavorable public opinion of FPV
systems.
Regulatory • Uncertainty about water rights may delay FPV project development and increase costs.
Barriers • Lack of interagency cooperation and coordination may stall FPV deployment.
• Lengthy, expensive, and unclear environmental approval processes for FPV systems can make
projects less financially appealing.
Technical • Unclear and, in some cases, nonexistent FPV installation, operation, and maintenance (O&M) and
Barriers equipment standards may lead to poor-quality FPV products and installation practices.
• Uncertainty about climate change impacts on the occurrence and intensity of extreme weather
events may lead to uncertainty about the suitability, reliability, and resilience of FPV installations
to natural disasters.
• Poor transmission planning may stall grid integration of utility-scale FPV systems, making them
less profitable.
• Difficulty in quantifying FPV system performance may impede efforts to conduct cost-benefit
analysis of FPV systems.
Additional • Nonexistent or unclear rules on the ownership, market participation, and operation of hybrid
Hybrid hydropower-FPV plants may complicate and stall project development.
Hydropower-
FPV
Considerations

vi
 Table ES- 2. Key Best Practice Considerations
Economic • Creating clear, complementary, transparent, and consistent incentives for energy development can
reduce uncertainty for FPV projects and reduce project development cost.
• Consistent and targeted government support to FPV systems in the form of rebates, tax incentives
and competitive RE auctions could help de-risk FPV systems and attract private sector financing.

Additional considerations for workforce development:

• Developing an FPV workforce through increased education and training for students and
professionals can empower the local community, equip professionals to support the growing FPV
industry, and help reduce FPV project development costs.
• Workforce development efforts could also involve gender mainstreaming to help provide women
with the equal opportunity to pursue careers in the FPV industry and other RE technology
industries.
• Conducting a national skills assessment to: (1) determine the current state of the FPV workforce,
(2) identify the potential transferability of skills from the offshore, hydropower, water production
and land-based solar industries, and (3) identify the types of skills or certifications needed in the
FPV industry that could strengthen and grow the FPV workforce.
Environmental • Government support for additional research and development (R&D), new management
techniques, long-term monitoring and secure but collaborative data sharing processes can increase
knowledge about environmental impacts of FPV systems, which could shorten the environmental
review process, thereby reducing project development costs.
Cultural • Prioritizing obtaining public buy-in and support through public outreach and engagement can
avoid delays during the FPV project development process.
• Developing educational programs to inform the public about the benefits of FPV systems and
intentional analysis and tracking of public acceptance for floating solar to monitor progress can
help obtain public support and buy-in.
Regulatory • Clear policies around water rights for FPV projects could reduce uncertainty during the project
development process, helping to de-risk the industry and attract more private sector investment.
• Reforming FPV-permitting guidelines reduces permit fees and minimizes inconsistencies, which
can make project development more accessible.
• Engaging with policymakers and financial institutions to increase awareness of FPV systems can
lead to increased support for investing in R&D and deployment projects. Policymakers lacking
sufficient background knowledge of RE, in general, and FPV, in particular, and its benefits cannot
design effective and targeted policies and regulations.
Technical • Developing appropriate and consistent standards and reliable certifications can reduce policy
uncertainty, create guidelines for O&M of FPV systems, and ensure the installation of high-quality
FPV systems.
• Supporting R&D on the resilience of FPV installations to natural disasters may increase
confidence in FPV system performance during extreme weather events.
• Proactive transmission planning through renewable energy zone (REZ) transmission planning can
help reduce uncertainty about siting of transmission infrastructure and encourage investment in
FPV projects.
• Enhanced interconnection procedures and grid integration planning approaches can streamline the
integration of FPV systems onto the grid.
Additional • Clear regulatory processes on the ownership and market participation models and valuation
hybrid methods for FPV hydropower hybrid systems could provide useful clarity to all stakeholders and
hydropower- support an informed decision-making process.
FPV • Development of operational and engineering best practices and training of hydropower power
considerations plant operators could help ensure smooth operation of these hybrid systems.

vii
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1
2 FPV Systems ................................................................................................................................2
2.1 FPV System Overview............................................................................................................2
3 Barriers to FPV Deployment ......................................................................................................4
3.1 Economic Barriers ..................................................................................................................4
3.2 Environmental Barriers ...........................................................................................................6
3.3 Cultural Barriers .....................................................................................................................7
3.4 Regulatory Barriers .................................................................................................................8
3.5 Technical Barriers ...................................................................................................................9
3.6 Additional Considerations for Hybrid Systems ....................................................................11
4 International Examples of FPV Best Practices .......................................................................13
4.1 Survey of International Experience With FPV Incentives and Policies ...............................13
4.2 Other Cross-Cutting Best Practice Considerations ...............................................................16
5 Conclusions and Takeaways .....................................................................................................18
References .........................................................................................................................................23

viii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Schematics of: (top) a typical large-scale FPV system and key components; and (bottom) a
representative hybrid FPV-hydropower plant ............................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. History of the Production Tax Credit with annual wind capacity additions and history of the
Investment Tax Credit with annual PV capacity additions ........................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Spectrum of RE targets ................................................................................................................ 16

List of Tables
Table ES- 1. Key Barriers to FPV Deployment ........................................................................................... vi
Table ES- 2. Key Best Practice Considerations .......................................................................................... vii
Table 1. Overview of Reservoir and Hydropower Plant Operation and Ownership Models for a
Hydropower-FPV System (Adapted from (Dobrotkova 2019) with country examples included) ............. 12
Table 2. Summary of Policy Considerations to Addressing Barriers to FPV Deployment ........................ 19

ix
1 Introduction
This report focuses on the countries of Southeast Asia (SE Asia), a region with growing energy needs,
ambitious renewable energy (RE) goals and a growing interest in floating photovoltaic (FPV) systems.
The countries of this region are diverse and undergoing rapid energy transitions to ensure a reliable,
secure, and cost-efficient energy future. The adoption of RE, including FPV systems, in the energy mix
can diversify the power generation mix and decrease reliance on imported fossil fuels, strengthening the
region’s energy security.

Government policies and regulations can support or impede the adoption of FPV systems. Policies that
are unfavorable, ineffective, or uncertain can distort the market, discouraging investment and stalling
public support and acceptance for an emerging technology. 1 Specific, targeted, and consistent policies can
create an enabling policy environment that leads to widescale technology adoption (Brown 2008; Byrnes
et al. 2013). As such, policy and regulation play crucial roles in FPV development. Given the increasing
interest in and deployment of FPV systems in Asia and high technical potential of standalone and
hybridized FPV systems (Lee et al. 2020), stakeholders (government, power system planners,
policymakers, and the private sector) are seeking a better understanding of the policy landscape for this
technology. Specifically:

• What are some existing and potential barriers to FPV deployment?

• What can policymakers do to address some of these barriers?
To increase understanding of the FPV policy landscape in SE Asia, this report aims to communicate how
policy barriers can hinder FPV deployment by discussing both the challenges present in the current policy
landscape and the possible solutions found within current international best practices. These findings and
considerations can help create an enabling policy and regulatory environment for FPV deployment in SE
Asia that is best aligned with its clean energy goals.

This report is organized into five sections:

1. Introduction: RE goals in SE Asia, interest in FPV systems and need for additional research on
FPV policy landscape
2. FPV Systems: Overview of FPV systems, their benefits, and applications with a focus on FPV
systems installed on in-land, static fresh water bodies
3. Barriers to FPV Deployment: Existing and potential barriers to FPV deployment; best practices
that may help address identified barriers
4. Country Examples of Best Practices: Best practices from current international deployment of FPV
systems and cross-cutting policy considerations that can inform FPV policy design
5. Conclusion: Summary of the barriers identified and policy considerations that may help address
the highlighted barriers.

1
We define unfavorable policies as policies that may distort markets, placing renewable energy technologies (RETs)
at a comparative disadvantage to more incumbent technologies. Ineffective policies are potentially flawed but well-
intentioned policies that may undermine intended policy goals. Policy uncertainty refers to ambiguous and
constantly changing policy environments that result in a “wait-and-see” demeanor ultimately discouraging
investment and stalling RE development (Brown 2008).

1
2 FPV Systems
2.1 FPV System Overview
FPV systems are an emerging and increasingly competitive application of solar PV, wherein systems are
sited on water bodies, such as lakes, ponds, or reservoirs (Rosa-Clot and Tina 2018a; Chandran 2019).
The solar panels utilized in FPV systems are the same as in land-based systems; however, instead of
fixing panels to land-based metal racks and mounts, they are affixed to plastic floats or pontoons as
standalone systems or hybridized systems, as shown in Figure 1. These floats lock together to create a raft
with power cables connecting the panels to equipment and transmission lines onshore. FPV systems are
currently predominantly installed on artificial water bodies to avoid concerns that may arise when sited on
natural water bodies (Sahu, Yadav, and Sudhakar 2016; Spencer et al. 2018). Additionally, though most
existing commercial and utility-scale FPV installations are located on static fresh water bodies; emerging
installations are considering installations on large fresh water bodies with inflow, near-shore seawater,
and offshore seawater with high waves (Reindl and Paton 2020).

Figure 1. Schematics of: (top) a typical large-scale FPV system and key components; and (bottom)
a representative hybrid FPV-hydropower plant
Source: Lee et al. 2020

Benefits

FPV systems may offer several economic and operational power system benefits, beyond the primary
benefit of electricity generation (see Box 1) (Hernandez et al. 2014; Teixeira et al. 2015; Hoffacker,
Allen, and Hernandez 2017; Ibeke et al. 2017; Cazzaniga et al. 2018; Rosa-Clot and Tina 2018b; Liu et al.
2019; Spencer et al. 2018). The actual benefits depend on several factors, including whether the FPV
system is standalone or hybridized with other generation, such as hydropower generation (Gallucci 2019;
Lee et al. 2020).

Global Technology Deployment

Since the first FPV system came online in 2007 at the Far Niente Winery in California, cumulative
installed FPV capacity increased from 2 MW in 2007 to 2,579 MW in early 2021 (less than 1% of global
solar PV capacity) (Gallucci 2019; Mesbahi and Minamino 2018; Versteeg, Szalay, and Schuuring 2021;
Reindl and Paton 2020). There are currently more than 545 FPV systems (both standalone and
hybridized) in operation with over 200 projects in the pipeline (Paton 2021). A majority of these projects
are located in Asia, with over 85% of installed capacity located in the region (Reindl and Paton 2020).
Most of this installed capacity is in China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea but FPV deployment is also
growing in Southeast Asia. For example, Vietnam and Thailand lead in the region with ~160 MW and
~60 MW installed, respectively and Laos, Singapore and Indonesia have announced various utility-scale

2
FPV projects (Cox 2021). In the near-term, demand for FPV systems is expected to grow especially in
countries with limited land space and high RE targets (Gallucci 2019; Mesbahi and Minamino 2018; Cox
2019).

Box 1. Benefits of FPV Integration

Utility-scale solar PV often requires significant parcels of land; however, land-constrained countries may
have to prioritize land use for agricultural, forestry, or other needs. FPV systems offer an opportunity to
scale up renewables while reducing potential competing land-use pressures by co-locating PV systems on
water bodies (such as reservoirs). In addition to generation, FPV systems may offer the following benefits,
particularly when sited with existing hydropower:

• Avoiding land-energy conflicts (such as energy versus food concerns for land-use designation)
• Lowering land acquisition and site preparation costs
• Gaining potential system efficiency and production due to temperature-regulating effect of water
• Improving solar PV performance due to reduced shading effects
• Increasing panel density for a given area (larger installed capacity per unit area)
• Converting potentially underused space into areas that allow for revenue-generating use.
• Power system benefits and reduced capital costs when co-located with hydropower.
Sources: (Hernandez et al. 2014; Teixeira et al. 2015; Hoffacker, Allen, and Hernandez 2017; Ibeke et al.
2017; Cazzaniga et al. 2018; Spencer et al. 2018; Rosa-Clot and Tina 2018b; Liu et al. 2019; Lee et al.
2020)

Adapted from Aznar, Lee, and Booth (2019)

Technology Costs

Questions remain about the actual costs of FPV systems and how they compare to land-based solar PV
systems. FPV system costs are site-specific and can vary widely across countries based on a range of
factors, including: the type of water body, water depth and distance to shore (which impact the type of
floating, mooring, and anchoring systems needed), geography (which could impact soft costs such as
labor and logistics), size of project, and differences in floating, mooring, and anchoring systems used
(Dobrotkova 2020; Cox 2019; 2021). Per Wood Mackenzie, all-in FPV system costs based on completed
and planned projects range widely from $0.52/W-dc in India for 20-80 MW-dc sized projects to $3.02/W-
dc in Japan for 1-5 MW-dc sized projects (Cox 2021). The avoided costs due to avoided land use also
varies based on land costs; a review of hypothetical FPV installations in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota
in the United States, estimated that compared to land-based PV systems, FPV systems could reduce the
levelized cost of energy by 1.3%–1.7% due to avoided land costs (Spencer et al. 2018). Economies of
scale and a transition to more utility-scale installations will lead to lower levelized cost of energy (LCOE)
for FPV installations as the FPV industry is still a relatively young industry where a majority of installed
FPV systems are small-scale installations, which typically have a higher LCOE.

3
3 Barriers to FPV Deployment
This section provides a breakdown of economic, environmental, cultural, and regulatory barriers
impeding the commercialization and deployment of FPV systems. We define barriers as significantly
influential market factors and challenges that may negatively impact the uptake of RE generation
(including FPV), reducing pathways to meet power sector policy objectives (MacGillivray et al. 2013).
Barriers can be technical and nontechnical, and the focus of this work is largely on nontechnical barriers
(Box 2).

Box 2. Technical and Nontechnical Barriers to RE Deployment

Technical barriers refer to operational and Nontechnical barriers refer to economic,
engineering system properties that impede regulatory, institutional, and socio-cultural
technology adoption and integration. For example, factors that impede technology adoption. For
uncertainty about the durability of panel materials in example, the lack of a trained FPV workforce
different water bodies is a potential technical barrier is a nontechnical barrier to FPV deployment.
that will not be addressed in detail in this report.

3.1 Economic Barriers

Barriers to FPV deployment may arise due to inconsistent, unfavorable, and uncertain economic policies.
Well-designed and targeted economic policies can play an important role in driving deployment of
emerging energy technologies, such as FPV, and generally take the form of price interventions that
subsidize new technology costs, which help them make inroads in the power sector (Margolis and Zuboy
2006; Brown 2008; Breetz, Mildenberger, and Stokes 2018).

Box 3. Economic Barriers and Best Practices

Impacts on • Subsidizing fossil fuels can create an uneven playing field making it difficult for
FPV FPV systems to compete in the market.
Deployment • Phasing out incentives for emerging RE may stall the development of FPV
of Economic systems.
Barriers • Economic policy uncertainty may stall private sector interest in FPV systems.
• Trained workforce shortages raise FPV deployment costs.
Best Practices • Creating clear, complementary, transparent, and consistent incentives for energy
(including to development can reduce uncertainty for FPV projects and reduce project
additional development cost.
considerations • Consistent and targeted government support to FPV systems in the form of
around rebates, tax incentives and competitive RE auctions could help de-risk FPV
workforce systems and attract private sector financing.
development)
Additional considerations for workforce development:
• Developing an FPV workforce through increased education and training for
students and professionals can empower the local community, equip professionals
to support the growing FPV industry, and help reduce FPV project development
costs.

4
 • Workforce development efforts could also involve gender mainstreaming to help
provide women with the equal opportunity to pursue careers in the FPV industry
and other RE technology industries (Morris, Greene, and Healey 2019).
• Conducting a national skills assessment to: (1) determine the current state of the
FPV workforce, (2) identify the potential transferability of skills from the
offshore, hydropower, water production and land-based solar industries, and (3)
identify the types of skills or certifications needed in the FPV industry that could
strengthen and grow the FPV workforce.

Subsidizing Fossil Fuels Can Create an Uneven Playing Field Making It Difficult
for FPV Systems to Compete in the Market
Policies that support or subsidize fossil fuel generation may distort the market in favor of fossil fuel
generation, putting emerging renewable energy technology (RET) such as FPV at a disadvantage in
markets. Subsidies to fossil fuel generation could impact the diffusion of RETs and FPV systems by: (1)
making RE less cost-competitive, (2) reinforcing a fossil fuel generation-based system, (3) distorting
private sector investment decisions, and (4) underpricing external costs (Bridle and Kitson 2014).

Phasing Out Incentives for Emerging RE May Stall Development of FPV Systems
The growing technological maturity of some RETs may lead to a phase out of incentives that could hurt
the growth of the FPV industry. RE such as hydropower, land-based solar PV, and onshore wind are now
increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuel power plants in many parts of the world. Given the maturity
of these technologies, some tax incentive policies for RETs are being phased out, which may be harmful
to emerging and potentially more disruptive RETs such as FPV (Noll and Hart 2019).

Economic Policy Uncertainty May Stall Private Sector Interest in FPV Systems
Private sector players, especially in emerging industries, rely on a stable, transparent, and favorable policy
environment that supports reliable and long-term energy markets (Vinci et al. 2014). If a policy
environment is uncertain, private sector actors are less likely to pursue projects (Gokhale-Welch and
Watson 2019). An uncertain policy and regulatory environment can stall deployment of new technologies
because developers prefer regulatory certainty in their investment choices.

There are several examples that illustrate that a stable policy environment is key to continued technology
deployment. At the federal level in the United States, tax policy is the main structure to incentive resource
allocation. Tax policy has been one of the main policies for incentivizing utility-scale solar and wind
projects (Mendelsohn and Harper 2012). Figure 2 highlights the impacts of an uncertain policy
environment around these tax incentives in the United States on wind and solar deployment. The figure
shows the two tax incentives that help reduce income tax obligations—the Investment Tax Credit and the
Production Tax Credit—largely used for solar and wind project development, respectively (Mendelsohn
and Harper 2012; Noll and Hart 2019). As shown in the figure, policy uncertainty on whether existing tax
incentives will be extended has led to a boom-and-bust cycle in wind and solar deployment over the last
25–30 years (Frazier, Marcy, and Cole 2019; Tegen 2015). This boom-bust cycle is harmful to the RE
industry because the costs to ramp-up and ramp-down production are expensive and players are deterred
from making long-term investments (Barradale 2010). There is evidence that there is an association
between energy policy uncertainty and RE investment in the United States (Burns 2019).

5
 Figure 2. History of the Production Tax Credit with annual wind capacity additions and history of
the Investment Tax Credit with annual PV capacity additions
Source: (Frazier, Marcy, and Cole 2019)

This pattern is seen elsewhere as well. For example, new investment in large-scale RE in Australia fell
between 2018 and 2019. Australia’s Clean Energy Investment Outlook (2019) found that this decline in
investment is partially due to an absence of policy certainty. In addition, the report found that investors
need certainty about the timing and plans for the phase-out of coal generation. Clear coal generation
phase-outs can help investors understand future generation needs and wholesale power prices.

Trained Workforce Shortages Raise FPV Deployment Costs

The lack of a skilled workforce can impact the installation, operation, and maintenance costs of FPV
systems. The shortage of a trained workforce and training institutes to build a trained FPV workforce can
increase the costs of development and deployment of energy systems (Seetharaman et al. 2019).
Additionally, insufficient investment or business interest in a technology can lead to a lack of interest
from a prospective workforce. A workforce lacking the adequate technical, scientific, and manufacturing
skills can stall broader technology deployment (Margolis and Zuboy 2006). As FPV deployment grows,
the FPV workforce becomes more skilled in installation, leading to efficiencies during installation and
reduced labor costs (Cox 2019).

3.2 Environmental Barriers

Different environmental barriers may impact FPV system deployment depending on the project size, site
characteristics such as the ecosystem and use of the reservoir, along with other potential local
environmental concerns. When planning an FPV system deployment, the entire area of influence of the
project must be assessed, which includes the immediate environmental footprint of the system and
associated facilities (such as substations, transmission lines and towers, and hydropower dams, among
others), the deployment water body, and upstream and/or downstream waters and their associated users
(World Bank, ESMAP, and SERIS 2019b). The installation of a pilot FPV system in Alto Rabagão,
Portugal, highlighted the need to review environmental protection regulations, particularly if the FPV
system is hybridized with a hydropower dam or a source of public drinking water, which may have
special classification as critical infrastructure with additional associated development constraints (IHP
and EDP 2018).

6
 Box 4. Environmental Barriers and Best Practices
Impacts on FPV • Uncertainty about FPV ecological impacts may increase public opposition to
Deployment of projects and lengthen the environmental review process.
Environmental
Barriers
Best Practices • Government support for additional research and development (R&D), new
management techniques, long-term monitoring and secure but collaborative
data sharing processes can increase knowledge about the environmental
impacts of FPV systems, which could shorten the environmental review
process, thereby reducing project development costs.

Uncertainty About FPV Ecological Impacts May Increase Public Opposition and
Lengthen the Environmental Review
The potential ecological impacts of FPV systems, especially their effect on the aquatic ecosystem, are not
yet fully understood, and there is limited publicly available research on the impacts (Haas et al. 2020).
This uncertainty may impede FPV deployment because this could complicate environmental review
processes and raise public concerns about the unknown impacts of FPV deployment.

A 2016 study from Ciel et Terre, an international FPV installer, on FPV installations in California
provides insight into possible ecological impacts of FPV systems; however, there remains a gap in
understanding of how these systems may impact water evaporation, water quality, and aquaculture and
the ecosystem. 2 There are a combination of factors to be considered to determine the impact of an FPV
system on a water body, and impacts cannot be generalized.

3.3 Cultural Barriers

Box 5. Cultural Barriers and Best Practices
Impacts on FPV • Lack of public buy-in of FPV technology due to visual impacts and competing
Deployment of uses of water bodies could stall project development.
Cultural Barriers • Previous negative experiences with RE projects may lead to an unfavorable
public opinion of FPV systems.
Best Practices • Prioritizing obtaining public buy-in and support through public outreach and
engagement can avoid delays during the FPV project development process.
• Developing educational programs to inform the public about the benefits of
FPV systems and intentional analysis and tracking of public acceptance for
floating solar to monitor progress can help obtain public support and buy-in.

Lack of Public Buy-In of FPV Technology Due to Visual Impacts and Competing
Uses of Water bodies Could Stall Project Development
Social acceptance plays an important role in RE deployment, and, despite technical and economic
feasibility, public opposition to development of technologies such as FPV could hamper implementation

2 Ciel et Tiere (2016) suggested that the reviewed FPV installations posed limited risk to wildlife due to: (1) FPV
systems being sited on artificial water bodies that are not home to protected species; (2) A quick installation process
that involves limited interaction with wildlife and aquaculture; (3) FPV component materials largely consisting of
nontoxic materials; and (4) a straightforward and infrequent operation and maintenance process that does not use
detergents or other pollutants (WRA Environmental Consultants 2016). Recommendations from the report included
conducting high-level research on potential environmental restrictions based on existing state and federal laws,
location of protected species, timing of bird seasons, among others, and adjusting project development as needed.

7
(Hofman 2015). To work towards community buy-in and support, it could be important to incorporate the
elements below in community engagement efforts:

1. Engage with a desire of understanding the local context

2. Demonstrate how project will further the values of community (for example, concerns about
climate change, job creation, etc.)
1. Present on the overall evaluation of costs, risks, and benefits of the technology and project
2. Provide clarity on the project development decision-making process
3. Develop an overall engagement approach that fosters trust in decision makers and other
stakeholders.

Previous Negative Experiences with RE Projects May Lead to an Unfavorable

Public Opinion of FPV Systems
In countries where there are land-energy use conflicts, unfairly applied resettlement and compensation
practices can create a negative perception of RE projects (Urban et al. 2018). FPV systems may thus face
public opposition due to negative public perceptions stemming from previous conflicts.

3.4 Regulatory Barriers

Regulatory barriers arise when legal restrictions enacted to achieve some social good begin to stifle
innovation and competition (Brown 2008). Regulatory barriers often impact multiple stages of the FPV
project development process.

Box 6. Regulatory Barriers and Best Practices

Impacts on FPV • Uncertainty about water rights may delay FPV project development and
Deployment of increase costs.
Regulatory Barriers • Lack of interagency cooperation and coordination may stall FPV
deployment.
• Lengthy, expensive, and unclear environmental approval processes for FPV
systems can make projects less financially appealing.
Best Practices • Clear policies around water rights for FPV projects could reduce uncertainty
during the project development process, helping to de-risk the industry and
attract more private sector investment.
• Reforming FPV-permitting guidelines reduces permit fees and minimizes
inconsistencies, which can make project development more accessible.
• Engaging with policymakers and financial institutions to increase awareness
of FPV systems can lead to increased support for investing in R&D and
deployment projects. Policymakers lacking sufficient background knowledge
of RE, in general, and FPV, in particular, and its benefits cannot design
effective and targeted policies and regulations.

Uncertainty About Water Rights May Delay FPV Project Development and
Increase Costs
Barriers to FPV deployment may arise at the intersection of energy and water policy. At the policy level,
water law and rights can be a contentious issue due to the uncertain ecological impacts of FPV systems on
natural versus artificial water bodies and the cross-sectoral uses of water bodies, and the uncertainty on

8
how or whether various water right doctrines apply to FPV systems such as those developed on artificial
reservoirs. Emerging evidence suggests that FPV systems are predominantly sited on artificial,
impounded water bodies, as artificial reservoirs have likely previously undergone necessary permitting
and regulatory processes and have the infrastructure to support FPV installation. Moreover, siting FPV
systems on natural water bodies may raise additional environmental impact concerns (Spencer et al.
2018). Barriers may also arise in the areas of marine spatial planning and zoning for offshore energy
deployment as emerging innovative FPV system designs are expanding to installations on large fresh
water bodies with inflow, near-shore seawater installations, and offshore seawater installations. Overall,
this uncertainty could increase FPV deployment costs as developers may have to invest significant time
and money to gain clarity before formally applying for the rights and permission to site FPV systems on a
given water body.

Lack of Interagency Cooperation and Coordination May Stall FPV Deployment

FPV deployment may require coordination between multiple agencies. Agencies may include:

• Energy agencies (such as the Department of Energy, power system regulator)

• Water management agencies (such as the Department of Water Resources and Management, water
treatment plants, water conservations agencies, reservoir operators, and so on)
• Land management agencies (such as the Departments of Agriculture, Land Conservation, and so on)
• Recreation management agencies (if the body of water is used for recreational purposes)
• Environmental protection agencies.
Laws and regulations for the deployment and siting of energy projects often require reviews, approvals,
and permits from multiple government entities. Coordination between these agencies can help streamline
project approval and reduce redundancy, which can lead to a more efficient and effective review of
projects, resulting in faster decision-making timelines (Morton 2012).

Lengthy, Expensive, and Unclear Environmental Approval Processes for FPV

Systems Can Make Them Less Financially Appealing
Lack of clarity in licensing and permitting can present major barriers to RE deployment. The unique
nature of FPV systems, especially siting on water bodies, may create additional layers of complexity.
Additionally, permitting and licensing barriers may arise due to potential interagency cooperation needed
between energy and water authorities (World Bank, ESMAP, and SERIS 2019b). The World Bank,
ESMAP, and SERIS (2019b) note that FPV deployment can take between 3 months to several years for a
project to move from the initiation to “shovel-ready.” As more regions and agencies gain experience with
FPV systems, this period should shorten (World Bank, ESMAP, and SERIS 2019b); however, given the
lack of experience that banks, insurers, and regulatory bodies currently have with FPV projects,
permitting and financial closing is likely to take longer than it may for more familiar, ground-mounted
solar PV projects (World Bank, ESMAP, and SERIS 2019b).

3.5 Technical Barriers

This section focuses on interconnection and transmission barriers, two technical barriers that can stall
FPV deployment. Interconnection and transmission barriers can lead to stranded FPV assets due to poor
power system planning and grid integration efforts and lead to the suboptimal siting of FPV power plants
due to limited transmission infrastructure. More detail on this topic is examined in the World Bank Group
Where Sun Meets Water: Floating Solar Handbook for Practitioners report (2019b).

9
 Box 7. Technical Barriers and Best Practices
Impacts on FPV • Unclear and nonexistent FPV installation, operation, and maintenance
Deployment of (O&M) and equipment standards may lead to poor-quality FPV products and
Technical Barriers installation practices.
• Uncertainty about climate change impacts on the occurrence and intensity of
extreme weather events may lead to uncertainty about the suitability,
reliability, and resilience of FPV installations to natural disasters.
• Poor transmission planning may stall grid integration of utility-scale FPV
systems, making them less profitable.
• Difficulty in quantifying FPV system performance may impede efforts to
conduct cost-benefit analysis of FPV systems.
Best Practices • Developing appropriate and consistent standards and reliable certifications
can reduce policy uncertainty, create guidelines for O&M of FPV systems,
and ensure the installation of high-quality FPV systems.
• Supporting R&D on the resilience of FPV installations to natural disasters
may increase confidence in FPV system performance during extreme weather
events.
• Proactive transmission planning through renewable energy zone (REZ)
transmission planning can help reduce uncertainty about siting of
transmission infrastructure and encourage investment in FPV projects.
• Enhanced grid integration planning approaches can streamline the integration
of FPV systems onto the grid.

Unclear and Nonexistent FPV Installation, Operation and Maintenance and

Equipment Standards May Lead to Poor-Quality FPV Productions and Installation
Practices
A lack of consistent FPV installation and equipment standards may lead to poor-quality FPV products,
installations, and system performance. Standards (and their enforcement) are a vital part of reliable power
system operation because they provide manufacturers with a benchmark of performance requirements for
their products, guide users during product selection, and help government agencies to incorporate them
into workplace safety and health regulations (Baugh 2015). A new consortium, led by Norwegian
consultancy, DNV GL, recently published the first recommend practice for FPV projects following a
collaborative project with 24 industry participants (DNVGL 2021). 3

Uncertainty About Climate Change Impacts on the Occurrence and Intensity of

Extreme Weather Events May Lead to Uncertainty About the Suitability,
Reliability, and Resilience of FPV Installations to Natural Disasters
Barriers to FPV deployment may arise due to climate change and the resulting changes to the
hydrological cycle. These changes may lead to changes in the occurrence and intensity of extreme
weather events such as floods and droughts, which could impact the host environment of various FPV

3 The Solar Energy Research Institute of Singapore has also published a guidebook on installation and equipment,
which lays out aspects such as decisive factors for selecting a water body for an FPV plant, engineering design,
financial and legal considerations, and environmental and social considerations (World Bank, ESMAP, and SERIS
2019b).

10
installations. The uncertainty in the potential impacts on water bodies could raise doubts about the
suitability, reliability, and resilience of FPV installations to these changes in the water bodies.

Poor Transmission Planning May Stall Grid Integration of Utility-Scale FPV

Systems, Making FPV Systems Less Profitable
Transmission barriers for FPV systems will depend on existing transmission grid infrastructure and the
systems in place for expanding transmission infrastructure to meet growing RE deployment. FPV systems
may face grid access challenges if transmission lines are overloaded. For example, agricultural ponds and
land-based solar fields are often located away from cities, which may require the construction of
additional transmission lines to carry the power, or an increased loss of energy in transmission due to line
resistance (Hartzell 2016). Insufficient transmission capacity can lead to stranded FPV assets due to poor
power system planning and grid integration efforts and the suboptimal siting of FPV power plants
because developers prioritize proximity to transmission infrastructure over the quality of the solar
resource.

Additionally, FPV project development costs are very site-specific and may become more expensive if
additional transmission infrastructure is needed to transport the energy produced. There is limited
research on the proportion of FPV projects that require additional transmission infrastructure, but, overall,
avoided land-use costs are a major benefit of FPV systems. One approach to identifying transmission
needs is REZ transmission planning, which is a process of planning, approving and building transmission
to connect REZs to the power system, specifically to load centers (Lee, Flores-Espino, and Hurlbut 2017).
Lee et. al (2017) outline six steps, including process design and vision statements to transmission system
upgrades that help ensure a thorough RE transmission planning process.

Difficulty in Quantifying FPV System Performance May Impede Efforts to Conduct

Cost-Benefit Analysis of FPV Systems
There is currently not a uniform methodology or approach for quantifying the value and performance of
FPV systems. This lack of a consistent approach may impede efforts to conduct cost-benefit analysis of
FPV systems, which may stall private sector interest in this technology option.

3.6 Additional Considerations for Hybrid Systems

Box 8. Hybrid-Related Barriers and Best Practices
Impacts on FPV • Nonexistent or unclear rules on the ownership, market participation, and
Deployment of operation of hybrid hydropower-FPV plants may complicate and stall project
Hybrid Systems development.
Best Practices • Clear regulatory processes on the ownership and market participation models
and valuation methods for FPV hydropower hybrid systems could provide
useful clarity to all stakeholders and support an informed decision-making
process.
• Development of operational and engineering best practices and training of
hydropower power plant operators could help ensure smooth operation of
these hybrid systems.

Nonexistent or Unclear Rules on the Ownership, Market Participation, and

Operation of Hybrid Hydropower-FPV Plants May Complicate and Stall Project
Development
Additional barriers may arise if an FPV system is hybridized with a hydropower system as market
operation rules for this hybrid system type are less established, and there are multiple stakeholders

11
involved (such as the owners and operators of the reservoirs, hydropower dams, and FPV systems) that
may have conflicting interests. Project approval may face various barriers depending on the ownership
model and market participation model (Dobrotkova 2020). Three potential ownership models are
highlighted in Table 1: An all-publicly owned modeled (Option 1), a public-private partnership model
(Option 2), and mostly private model (Option 3) (Dobrotkova 2019). For example, project developers
might face a lengthy project approval process under Option 2 as the private FPV developer would need to
engage with state-owned enterprises that operate the hydropower plant and manage the reservoir. There is
also limited research on the barriers that arise due to the ownership and market participation model of a
standalone FPV plant. Clear regulatory processes on the ownership and market participation models and
operation methods for these hybrid systems could provide useful clarity to all stakeholders and support an
informed decision-making process. However, because very few projects have been completed on
hydropower dams, such rules remain largely unavailable for existing hydropower-FPV hybrid systems.

Table 1. Overview of Reservoir and Hydropower Plant Operation and Ownership Models for a
Hydropower-FPV System (Adapted from (Dobrotkova 2019) with country examples included)

Design and Operation Operation Management Hypothetical Emerging

construction of FPV of of reservoir Country Project-
of FPV system hydropower Examples 4 specific
system plant examples
Option 1: Public entity Philippines, Ghana 5,
Pure public Thailand Thailand 6
model
Option 2: Private operator Public entity Philippines, Vietnam
Public- Thailand
Private
Partnership
model
Option 3: Private operator Public entity Cambodia,
Mostly Indonesia, Laos
private
model

4
Using publicly available data, the authors evaluated hydropower plant ownership in 7 out of 10 Association of
Southeast Asian Nations countries (Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam). In this
analysis, a country is categorized as having an “Option 1” and “Option 2” ownership model if majority of in-country
hydropower plants are publicly owned and an “Option 3” ownership model if majority of its hydropower plants are
privately owned. Burma and Vietnam were excluded from this list due to inconclusive publicly available data.
5
Ghana recently commissioned a 5 MW FPV – 400 MW hydropower hybrid project. The 5 MW FPV installation is
part of the first phase of a multi-phase 250 MW FPV project on the Bui Hydropower dam in Ghana. The reservoir,
hydropower plant and FPV system are all owned and operated by the Bui Power Authority, a majority-government
owned entity (Bui Power Authority 2020; RenewAfrica 2020).
6
An FPV-hydropower hybrid system that will be the largest FPV hybrid system once completed in June 2021. It
will hybridize a 45 MW FPV system with the 36 MW Sirindhorn Dam in Thailand. Both facilities will be owned by
the state-owned Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (VietnamPlus 2021).

12
4 International Examples of FPV Best Practices
In addition to the best practices presented in the previous section, this section provides country examples
of FPV best practices alongside various cross-cutting policy considerations that may help support FPV
deployment.

4.1 Survey of International Experience with FPV Incentives and

Policies
The majority of FPV systems are installed in mainland China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, and the
Netherlands. China accounts for 50% of all FPV installed capacity, with Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, Korea,
and the Netherlands accounting for 12%, 11%, 6%, 4%, and 4% of total installed capacity respectively
(Paton 2021). These countries, and others (including states in the United States), have adopted a range of
incentives to support the nascent FPV industry. Feed-in-tariffs (FITs) were an initial policy instrument
used to stimulate the deployment of FPV systems but is now largely being phased out in several
countries. The following section details how and why FPV deployment has grown in select jurisdictions
and the policies in place to encourage FPV adoption.

China
China has the largest installed capacity (~1.3 GW) of FPV systems, and this has largely been driven by its
national RE targets and specific solar PV policies. Existing RE targets set under national policies has
driven the demand for new RE projects as China’s 2019 renewable portfolio standard requires the country
source 20% of primary energy from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030. Utilities in every state must therefore
develop capacity expansion plans that ensure they meet the renewable portfolio standard (Zhu and Song
2020). These national energy targets, in addition to environmental pollution laws in some provinces, have
encouraged deployment of RE, including FPV systems. However, the majority of FPV deployment has
been due to three solar PV policies – the standard FIT “Build Plan”, the Poverty Alleviation program, and
the Top Runner Program, the latter of which was instrumental to FPV deployment from 2017-2019 (Tan
2017). The FITs played an important initial role in spurring new investment in PV systems, but the
government is transitioning to competitive auctions and phasing out FITs and other subsidies.

The Poverty Alleviation program provided economic support to support household-level, village-level,
and utility-scale PV deployment. This program was key to FPV deployment on abandoned, flooded, and
heavily polluted coal mines (which are unsuitable for many other purposes) (Pouran 2018). The Top
Runner Program was also key to FPV deployment in China as it provided economic incentives to FPV
systems and other innovative and emerging PV technologies. The program set minimum performance
parameters for technologies to participate and then set up exclusive tenders for the qualifying
technologies. Both programs have now been phased out, but both led to the installation of over 1,000 MW
of FPV from 2017–2019 and China has quickly become one of the largest deployers of FPV systems
worldwide (Acharya and Devraj 2019; Reindl and Paton 2020). It is home to some of the world’s largest
FPV systems such as the 70 MW installation covering over 63 hectares of flooded area in the Huainan
province, which was completed in 2017. This project is sited on a collapsed coal mine and is part of larger
efforts to build 1,000 MW of FPV on abandoned coal mines.

Overall, China offers lessons on encouraging FPV deployment:

• Support FPV deployment on otherwise unusable land and artificial water bodies, as opposed to
natural water bodies that may have a more complex environmental review process; and

• Encourage RE deployment, including FPV deployment, via national targets and regional
requirements.

13
India
India has ~92 MW of installed FPV capacity, and over 1,700 MW is under development. The Energy and
Resources Institute (2019) estimates that India’s water reservoirs could host approximately 28,000 MW of
FPV capacity (Gupta 2020; Acharya and Devraj 2019). India offers multiple tax incentives and FPV-
specific auctions. For example, in January 2020 the Solar Energy Corporation of India issued tenders for
4MW of FPV with 2MW/1MWh of battery storage in the Andaman islands (Tom Kenning 2020).

• Overall, India offers one lesson on encouraging FPV deployment: Support FPV deployment through
economic incentives.

Japan
Japan has also become a leader in FPV, with at least 260 MW of FPV installed and the creation of a local
job creating FPV industry. Japan’s interest in FPV systems has largely been due to its unique power
system needs, mountainous geography, and land constraints. In 2011, following the Fukushima nuclear
accident, the country decided to deploy more RE. As such, the government increased its support for
RETs, especially solar energy, through R&D support, subsidies for residential solar, generous FITs, and a
renewable portfolio standard. The main incentive mechanism used to encourage solar PV deployment was
initially in the form of FITs, but these FITs are currently being phased out to spur the deployment of cost
competitive RE while reducing the financial cost incurred by the state. Additionally, various institutions
such as the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB)
have supported solar PV deployment in and outside of Japan through technical support and project
financing (Yamazaki, Osamu Ikki, and RTS Corporation 2019). Even though no specific measures have
been taken to support FPV systems, the unique land use challenges and government support and
investment in solar PV has reaped several benefits for Japan’s FPV industry (Yamazaki, Osamu Ikki, and
RTS Corporation 2019).

Overall, Japan offers lessons on encouraging FPV deployment:

• Incentivizing the deployment of FPV systems in land-constrained countries with competing land-use
needs for agriculture and populations could ease land-use pressures while also aligning with policies
for the provision of clean and affordable electricity;
• Clear, complementary incentives and restrictions for energy development, land-use and agriculture,
and water resource management, could help to reduce barriers and risks for FPV deployment while
respecting societal values for these systems;
• Encouraging FPV technology adoption requires multiple approaches, including R&D support, and
funding pilot and demonstration projects;
• As a technology gains market share, opposition to continued government support is likely to grow;
• Ambitious RE targets can play a role in encouraging investment in emerging RETs; and
• Supporting the scale-up of emerging RETs is one tangible approach to diversifying the generation
mix.
The Netherlands
Netherlands leads FPV deployment in Europe with about 110 MW of installed capacity. The government
supports FPV projects as part of its larger RE strategy. In 2017, the country’s Ministry of Infrastructure
and Water Management created a consortium called “Zon op Water” (“Sun on Water”) to work toward
developing 2,000 MW of FPV by 2023 (Acharya and Devraj 2019; “About Sun on Water” 2017). The
Netherlands also supports RE development under the Sustainable Energy Production Incentive grant

14
program. This program reimburses the difference between the cost of generating energy from the FPV
system and the prevailing wholesale market price (van de Ven 2019).

Overall, the Netherlands offers lessons on encouraging FPV deployment:

• Providing direct financial incentives like production-based incentives can help de-risk FPV systems;
and
• Encouraging interagency cooperation can help encourage FPV development by reducing the
administrative hurdles to deployment.
South Korea
South Korea supports solar PV deployment as part of its broader power sector decarbonization strategy.
FPV systems have emerged as an attractive alternative to land-based PV systems because the government
has faced some public opposition to using forest and agricultural land for solar developments (Alsharif,
Kim, and Kim 2018). This focus on FPV systems has made South Korea a leader in FPV deployment
(with at least 120 MW of FPV installed); the country recently announced a $3.96 billion, or 2,100-MW of
offshore FPV projects (PV Magazine 2019).

Government support for FPV has consisted of financial support to R&D and national RE targets that are
favorable to FPV systems and other emerging RETs. Since 2009, the government began supporting
innovation of FPV systems at all levels, starting with funding initial research, development, and
demonstration (RD&D) projects. In 2011, government support advanced to collaborating with
independent power producers to finance pilot projects. In 2013, the Korean government revised its RPS,
assigning the highest Renewable Energy Credit weighting within the solar class to FPV systems and
rooftop PV systems (Kim et al. 2016; Korea Energy Agency 2020).

Overall, South Korea offers lessons on encouraging FPV deployment:

• Encouraging FPV adoption can create a local, job-creating FPV industry as well as help avoid land-
energy conflicts caused by land-based PV systems competing with other land use needs; and
• Encouraging FPV technology adoption requires multiple approaches including R&D and deployment
support.
Taiwan
Taiwan has a goal of developing at least 20 GW of solar generation by 2025 and it is one of the only
jurisdictions that has a specific FIT for FPV projects (Executive Yuan 2019; PV Magazine 2020). It
currently has ~300 MW of FPV installed (Paton 2021). Most FPV systems in Taiwan are installed on
water retention reservoirs and irrigation dams (Acharya and Devraj 2019). In 2019, Taiwan offered
generous FITs for solar PV systems. Within the first nine months of the year, solar PV deployment had
grown by ~30 percent compared to the previous year. As such, starting in 2020, Taiwan lowered its FIT
rates for solar PV, specifically for rooftop PV located in urban areas and FPV(Taiyang News 2020;
Bureau of Energy, Ministry of Economic Affairs 2020).

Overall, Taiwan offers lessons on encouraging FPV deployment:

• Incentives for FPV systems must be carefully designed to not over-incentivize participation; and
• Enabling policies for FPV deployment must be coordinated with grid integration studies and
proactive transmission planning to ensure that the grid is well-positioned to integrate large shares of
solar generation. This is especially true for FPV systems and other emerging energy technologies,
where the profitability of early projects is a key signal to developers.

15
The United States: Massachusetts
State-level policies are leading the FPV policymaking process in the United States, as there are no
national-level FPV policies. For example, the state of Massachusetts offers incentives for FPV systems as
part of its Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target Program. A location-based incentive is available at
$0.03/kWh. FPV systems can qualify for this incentive if: (1) They are sited on water bodies that can still
be used for the originally intended purpose; (2) They consist of a system that has been tested for potential
water quality impacts; (3) They cover a maximum of 50% of the water body and avoid development on
natural water bodies; and (4) They have minimal interaction with the ecosystem (Baker et al. 2018;
Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources 2020). FPV deployment may still face barriers during
deployment, as the uncertainty about the environmental impacts of FPV systems may lead to an extended
environmental review process.

Overall, Massachusetts offers the following lesson on encouraging FPV deployment:

• A holistic, coordinated, and consistent approach to policy support for FPV adoption can help address
multiple barriers that may exist across the project development chain.

4.2 Other Cross-Cutting Best Practice Considerations

In addition to the best practices highlighted in Sections 3 and 4.1, there are some cross-cutting policy
considerations that could enable a more integrated and effective approach to designing a robust and
enabling policy environment for FPV systems.

Outline and Enforce Ambitious RE Goals

RE goals come in many different forms. The International Renewable Energy Agency Spectrum of RE
Targets (see Figure ) illustrates the range of RE targets and how they compare to one another in terms of
specificity, measurability, and binding characteristics (Kieffer and Couture 2015). RE targets that are
aggressive are likely to stimulate the FPV market, especially in areas where land is scarce (Cox 2019). In
countries with land and water scarcity problems, RE targets could especially incentivize FPV systems that
address these one or both these issues (Cohen and Hogan 2018). Targets that are legally binding with
clear enforcement mechanisms and penalties can drive and encourage investment in RE technologies
because such targets provide clarity and stability (Kieffer and Couture 2015).

Figure 3. Spectrum of RE targets

Source: Adapted from (Kieffer and Couture 2015)

Increase Knowledge
FPV deployment can be encouraged by strengthening and expanding knowledge on FPV technology and
benefits to all stakeholders, including policymakers, the workforce, financial institutions, developers, and
utilities.

16
Support R&D
Government support for initial R&D and demonstration projects is often critical to technology maturity
and innovation because it essentially subsidizes innovation and development and serves to de-risk
emerging technology like FPV systems. More knowledge on the performance and costs of FPV could
help inform more specific and more impactful policies, but government support and funding are important
for initial RD&D projects. RD&D also involves the creation and implementation of standards and
certifications for equipment and parts. Without standards, there can be confusion and uncertainty, which
has been the case with FPV systems (Seetharaman et al. 2019). Investment in RE projects may be inhibit
if there are not interconnection standards in place. This is because investors and developers do not know
when or how projects can be connected to the grid and start generating revenue (Gokhale-Welch and
Watson 2019).

Improve Financing
Consistent government support to FPV systems in the form of direct expenditures (grants, loans, and
other financial assistance awards made directly to recipients), funds for R&D, tax benefits or preferences,
and loan guarantees can provide foundational support for technology development and deployment and
spur private sector investment. Sudden, unexpected changes to government support makes it difficult to
attract investment in RE (Bowers et al. 2018; White et al. 2013). Financial institutions with insufficient
knowledge on FPV systems are less likely to provide funding for projects (Seetharaman et al. 2019).
Private sector investment is also an important source of financing and should be encouraged. For projects
that involve foreign investment, investor confidence can be increased with government-backed sovereign
guarantees that are specified in U.S. dollars (Gokhale-Welch and Watson 2019).

17
5 Conclusions and Takeaways
Southeast (SE) Asian countries are taking significant steps to meet growing energy needs while reducing
the carbon footprints of their power sectors. The adoption of renewable energy, including floating solar
photovoltaic (FPV) systems, can diversify the power generation mix and decrease reliance on imported
fossil fuels, strengthening energy security. This report highlights a range of policy and regulatory barriers
facing the growing FPV industry in Southeast Asia, which could impede robust growth of the industry.
Our report reveals the cyclical nature of the knowledge gaps surrounding FPV technology policy. Gaps in
literature create uncertainty about the benefits and value of FPV systems, making it more difficult to de-
risk FPV systems at the level that is needed to encourage utility-scale deployment and financial
investment from the private sector. Without investment, the industry cannot grow and provide evidence
on the bankability and value of the technology. This lack of research and empirical data on system
performance and benefits discourages investment and financing of the projects that would generate much-
needed data (Cox 2019).

18
 Table 2. Summary of Policy Considerations to Addressing Barriers to FPV Deployment
Type of Impacts of Barriers on Best Practices to Consider Addressing Additional Benefits and Trade-Offs
Barrier FPV Deployment Barriers
Subsidizing fossil fuels can
create an uneven playing
field making it difficult for
FPV systems to compete in
the market.
Phasing out incentives for • Creating clear, complementary,
emerging RE may stall the transparent, and consistent incentives
development of FPV for energy development can reduce
systems. uncertainty for FPV projects and
reduce project development cost.
Economic policy uncertainty • Consistent and targeted government
may stall private sector support to FPV systems in the form
interest in FPV systems. of rebates, tax incentives and
competitive RE auctions could help
de-risk FPV systems and attract
private sector financing.
Trained workforce shortages • Developing an FPV workforce • Workforce development is a long-
raise FPV deployment costs. through increased education and term effort that may require
training for students and significant financial investment.
professionals can empower the local • Efforts that involve gender
Economic

community, equip professionals to mainstreaming efforts could help

support the growing FPV industry, provide women with the equal
and help reduce FPV project opportunity to pursue careers in
development costs. the FPV industry and other RE
• Workforce development efforts could industries.
also involve gender mainstreaming to
help provide women with the equal
opportunity to pursue careers in the
FPV industry and other RE
technology industries.
• Conducting a national skills
assessment to: (1) determine the
current state of the FPV workforce,
(2) identify the potential
transferability of skills from the
offshore, hydropower, water
production and land-based solar
industries, and (3) identify the types
of skills or certifications needed in
the FPV industry that could
strengthen and grow the FPV
workforce.

19
Type of Impacts of Barriers on Best Practices to Consider Addressing Additional Benefits and Trade-Offs
Barrier FPV Deployment Barriers
Uncertainty about FPV • Government support for additional • Environmental research may
ecological impacts may research and development (R&D), uncover positive or negative
increase public opposition to new management techniques, long- impacts of FPV, which will
projects and lengthen the
Environmental

term monitoring and secure but reduce uncertainty and potentially

environmental review collaborative data sharing processes increase adopter confidence.
process. can increase knowledge about
environmental impacts of FPV
systems, which could shorten the
environmental review process,
thereby reducing project development
costs.
Lack of public buy-in of • Prioritizing obtaining public buy-in • Stakeholder engagement can be
FPV technology due to and support through public outreach complex, lengthy, and expensive.
visual impacts and and engagement can avoid delays • Early and well-done community
competing uses of water during the FPV project development engagement centering community
bodies could stall project process. needs could help ensure many
development. multiple stakeholders reap the
Cultural

Previous negative • Developing educational programs to benefits of FPV deployment.

experiences with RE projects inform the public about the benefits • FPV development can lead to job
may lead to an unfavorable of FPV systems and intentional creation and economic growth for
public opinion of FPV analysis and tracking of public the local community.
systems. acceptance for floating solar to
monitor progress can help obtain
public support and buy-in.
Uncertainty about water • Clear policies around water rights for
rights may delay FPV FPV projects could reduce
project development and uncertainty during the project
increase costs. development process, helping to de-
Regulatory

risk the industry and attract more

private sector investment.
Lack of interagency • Interagency cooperation is often a
cooperation and complex, long-term effort, but can
coordination may stall FPV ultimately yield a more efficient
deployment. administrative process.

20
Type of Impacts of Barriers on Best Practices to Consider Addressing Additional Benefits and Trade-Offs
Barrier FPV Deployment Barriers
Lengthy, expensive, and • Reforming FPV-permitting • Standards are a direct way to
unclear environmental guidelines reduces permit fees and ensure all installers meet required
approval processes for FPV minimizes inconsistencies, which can standards.
systems can make projects make project development more • Licensing and certification
less financially appealing. accessible. requirements may exclude smaller
• Engaging with policymakers and companies if there are steep
financial institutions to increase financial and administrative costs
awareness of FPV systems can lead involved.
to increased support for investing in
R&D and deployment projects.
Policymakers lacking sufficient
background knowledge of RE, in
general, and FPV, in particular, and
its benefits cannot design effective
and targeted policies and regulations.
Unclear and, in some cases, • Developing appropriate and
nonexistent FPV installation, consistent standards and reliable
operation, and maintenance certifications can reduce policy
(O&M) and equipment uncertainty, create guidelines for
standards may lead to poor- O&M of FPV systems, and ensure
quality FPV products and the installation of high-quality FPV
installation practices. systems.
Uncertainty about climate • Supporting R&D on the resilience of • An R&D ecosystem creates jobs
change impacts on the FPV installations to natural disasters and develops local expertise on
occurrence and intensity of may increase confidence in FPV FPV deployment that is tailored to
extreme weather events may system performance during extreme address unique challenges facing a
lead to uncertainty about the weather events. given local context.
Technical

suitability, reliability, and

resilience of FPV
installations to natural
disasters.
Poor transmission planning • Enhanced grid integration planning • Proactive transmission planning
may stall grid integration of approaches can streamline the helps maximize benefits from
utility-scale FPV systems, integration of FPV systems onto the FPV (and broader RE)
making them less profitable. grid. deployment.

Difficulty in quantifying
FPV system performance
may impede efforts to
conduct cost-benefit analysis
of FPV systems.

21
Type of Impacts of Barriers on Best Practices to Consider Addressing Additional Benefits and Trade-Offs
Barrier FPV Deployment Barriers
Nonexistent or unclear rules • Clear regulatory processes on the
Additional Considerations for

on the ownership, market ownership and market participation

participation, and operation models and valuation methods for
of hybrid hydropower-FPV FPV hydropower hybrid systems
Hybrid Systems

plants may complicate and could provide useful clarity to all

stall project development. stakeholders and support an informed
decision-making process.
• Development of operational and
engineering best practices and
training of hydropower power plant
operators could help ensure smooth
operation of these hybrid systems.

22
References
“About Sun on Water.” 2017. 2017. https://zonopwater.nl/over-zon-op-water.
Acharya, Mohit, and Sarvesh Devraj. 2019. “Floating Solar Photovoltaic (FSPV): A Third Pillar to Solar
PV Sector?” New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute.
https://www.teriin.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/floating-solar-PV-report.pdf.
Alsharif, Mohammed H., Jeong Kim, and Jin Hong Kim. 2018. “Opportunities and Challenges of Solar
and Wind Energy in South Korea: A Review.” Sustainability 10 (6): 1822.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061822.
“ASEAN Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation (2016-2025).” 2015. Jakarta: ASEAN Centre for
Energy. https://aseanenergy.org/2016-2025-asean-plan-of-action-for-energy-cooperation-apaec/.
“Australia’s Clean Energy Investment Outlook.” 2019.
https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources/reports/CEC-briefing-paper-
Australias-clean-energy-investment-outlook-September-2019.pdf.
Aznar, Alexandra, Nathan Lee, and Samuel Booth. 2019. “International Applications for Floating Solar
Photovoltaics.” Technical Report. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/73907.pdf.
Baker, Charles D, Karyn E Polito, Matthew A Beaton, and Judith F Judson. 2018. “Solar Massachusetts
Renewable Target (SMART) Program Summary.” October 31.
Barradale, Merrill Jones. 2010. “Impact of Public Policy Uncertainty on Renewable Energy Investment:
Wind Power and the Production Tax Credit.” Energy Policy, Special Section: Carbon Reduction
at Community Scale, 38 (12): 7698–7709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.08.021.
Baugh, Lydia. 2015. “Why Are Standards Important?” International Safety Equipment Association (blog).
August 27, 2015. https://safetyequipment.org/knowledge-center-items/why-are-standards-
important/.
Bowers, Richard, Fred Mayes, Steven Hanson, Mark Schipper, Bonnie West, Chris Namovicz, Aloulou
Faouzi, and Michael Scott. 2018. “Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy
in Fiscal Year 2016.” U.S. Energy Information Administration.
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf.
Breetz, Hanna, Matto Mildenberger, and Leah Stokes. 2018. “The Political Logics of Clean Energy
Transitions.” Business and Politics 20 (4): 492–522. https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2018.14.
Bridle, Richard, and Lucy Kitson. 2014. “The Impact of Fossil-Fuel Subsidies on Renewable Electricity
Generation.” Global Subsidies Institute.
https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/impact-fossil-fuel-subsidies-renewable-
electricity-generation.pdf.
Brown, Marilyn A. 2008. “Governing Confusion: How Statutes, Fiscal Policy, and Regulations Impede
Clean Energy Technologies.” 28. Working Paper Series. Georgia Tech School of Public Policy.
https://spp.gatech.edu/publications/pubFile/377.
Bui Power Authority. 2020. “Ghana Commissions First Hydro-Solar Hybrid Generating System and
Floating Solar PV.” Bui Power Authority (blog). December 3, 2020. https://buipower.com/ghana-
commissions-first-hydro-solar-hybrid-generating-system-and-floating-solar-pv/.
Bureau of Energy, Ministry of Economic Affairs. 2020. “2020 Feed-In Tariffs of Renewable Energy
Electric Power Taiwan.Pdf.”
https://www.moeaboe.gov.tw/ECW/main/content/wHandMenuFile.ashx?file_id=6803.
Burns, Kelly. 2019. “On the Relationship between Policy Uncertainty and Investment in Renewable
Energy.” IAEE Energy Forum. https://www.iaee.org/documents/2019EnergyForumSI.pdf.
Byrnes, Liam, Colin Brown, John Foster, and Liam D. Wagner. 2013. “Australian Renewable Energy
Policy: Barriers and Challenges.” Renewable Energy 60 (December): 711–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.06.024.

23
Cazzaniga, R., M. Cicu, M. Rosa-Clot, P. Rosa-Clot, G. M. Tina, and C. Ventura. 2018. “Floating
Photovoltaic Plants: Performance Analysis and Design Solutions.” Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 81 (January): 1730–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.269.
Chandran, Rina. 2019. “In Land-Scarce Southeast Asia, Solar Panels Float on Water.” Reuters, February
8, 2019. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-renewables-solar-climatechange-idUSKCN1PX0YK.
Cohen, Eden, and Ryan Hogan. 2018. “Made in the Shade: Promoting Solar Over Water Projects.” Idaho
Law Review 54 (April): 45.
Cox, Molly. 2019. “Floating Solar Landscape 2019.” Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables.
https://www.woodmac.com/reports/power-markets-floating-solar-landscape-2019-347469/.
———. 2021. “Floating Solar Landscape 2021.” Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables.
https://www.woodmac.com/reports/power-markets-floating-solar-landscape-2021-476537.
DNVGL. 2021. “Design, Development and Operation of Floating Solar Photovoltaic Systems.” 0584.
DNVGL. https://www.dnv.com/news/dnv-publishes-world-s-first-recommended-practice-for-
floating-solar-power-plants-199138.
Dobrotkova, Zuzana. 2019. “Hydro-Connected Solar Solutions for Developing Countries.” October 31.
———. 2020. “Floating Solar: A Global Perspective.” Presented at the Presentation at the ISES/GSC
webinar, Energy Sector Management Assistance Program, World Bank, Washington DC, May
28.
Executive Yuan. 2019. “Steady Installation of Solar Power Will Achieve 2025 Goal of 20 GW.”
Department of Information Services. March 28, 2019.
https://english.ey.gov.tw/Page/61BF20C3E89B856/21c6d6fa-b235-4751-a7ca-
ada2ea2a6a84#:~:text=Steady%20installation%20of%20solar%20power%20will%20achieve%20
2025%20goal%20of%2020%20GW,-
Date%3A%202019%2D03&text=Premier%20Su%20Tseng%2Dchang%20on,from%20renewabl
e%20sources%20by%202025.
Frazier, A. Will, Cara Marcy, and Wesley Cole. 2019. “Wind and Solar PV Deployment after Tax Credits
Expire: A View from the Standard Scenarios and the Annual Energy Outlook.” The Electricity
Journal 32 (8): 106637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2019.106637.
Gallucci, Maria. 2019. “No Land, No Problem. Floating Solar Panels Might Be the next Big Thing.” Grist
(blog). December 2, 2019. https://grist.org/article/no-land-no-problem-floating-solar-panels-
might-be-the-next-big-thing/.
Gokhale-Welch, Carishma, and Andrea C Watson. 2019. “Utility-Scale Wind and Solar in Emerging
Markets - Private Sector Perspectives.” NREL/TP-7A40-74154, 1527337.
https://doi.org/10.2172/1527337.
Gupta, Uma. 2020. “Indian Reservoirs Could Host 280 GW of Floating Solar.” February 18, 2020.
https://www.pv-magazine-india.com/2020/02/18/indian-reservoirs-could-host-280-gw-of-
floating-solar/.
Haas, J., J. Khalighi, A. de la Fuente, S. U. Gerbersdorf, W. Nowak, and Po-Jung Chen. 2020. “Floating
Photovoltaic Plants: Ecological Impacts versus Hydropower Operation Flexibility.” Energy
Conversion and Management 206 (February): 112414.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112414.
Hartzell, Tynan Scott. 2016. “Evaluating the Potential for Floating Solar Installations on Arizona Water
Management Infrastructure.”
https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/608582/HartzellT.pdf;jsessionid=D843A56
E847E94.
Hernandez, R. R., S. B. Easter, M. L. Murphy-Mariscal, F. T. Maestre, M. Tavassoli, E. B. Allen, C. W.
Barrows, et al. 2014. “Environmental Impacts of Utility-Scale Solar Energy.” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 29 (January): 766–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.041.
Hoffacker, Madison K., Michael F. Allen, and Rebecca R. Hernandez. 2017. “Land-Sparing
Opportunities for Solar Energy Development in Agricultural Landscapes: A Case Study of the

24
 Great Central Valley, CA, United States.” Environmental Science & Technology 51 (24): 14472–
82. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05110.
Hofman, Erwin. 2015. “Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy.” Climate Policy Info Hub.
https://climatepolicyinfohub.eu/social-acceptance-renewable-energy.
Ibeke, Mfon, Emily Miller, Dylan Sarkisian, Jessica Gold, Sydney Johnson, and Kester Wade. 2017.
“Floating Photovoltaics in California - Project Final Report | Tomkat.” August 2017.
https://tomkat.stanford.edu/floating-photovoltaics-california-project-final-report.
IHP, and EDP. 2018. “Case Study: A Hybrid Hydropower and Floating PV System in Portugal.” London:
International Hydropower Association (IHA) and Energias de Portugal (EDP).
https://www.hydropower.org/sites/default/files/publications-docs/case_study_-
_a_hybrid_hydropower_and_floating_pv_system_in_portugal.pdf.
Kieffer, Ghislaine, and Toby D. Couture. 2015. “Renewable Energy Target Setting.” Abu Dhabi: IRENA.
https://www.irena.org/-
/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2015/IRENA_RE_Target_Setting_2015.pdf.
Kim, Sun-Hee, Soon-Jong Yoon, Wonchang Choi, and Ki-Bong Choi. 2016. “Application of Floating
Photovoltaic Energy Generation Systems in South Korea.” Sustainability 8 (12): 1333.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121333.
Korea Energy Agency. 2020. “Feed-in Tariffs for New and Renewable Energy.” Korea Energy Agency.
2020. https://www.energy.or.kr/renew_eng/new/renewable.aspx.
Lee, Nathan, Francisco Flores-Espino, and David Hurlbut. 2017. “Renewable Energy Zone (REZ)
Transmission Planning Process: A Guidebook for Practitioners,” September, 28.
Lee, Nathan, Ursula Grunwald, Evan Rosenlieb, Heather Mirletz, Alexandra Aznar, Robert Spencer, and
Sadie Cox. 2020. “Hybrid Floating Solar Photovoltaics-Hydropower Systems: Benefits and
Global Assessment of Technical Potential.” Renewable Energy 162 (December): 1415–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.08.080.
Liu, Luyao, Qie Sun, Hailong Li, Hongyi Yin, Xiaohan Ren, and Ronald Wennersten. 2019. “Evaluating
the Benefits of Integrating Floating Photovoltaic and Pumped Storage Power System.” Energy
Conversion and Management 194 (August): 173–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.04.071.
MacGillivray, A, H Jeffrey, C Hanmer, D Magagna, A Raventos, and A Badcock-Broe. 2013. “Ocean
Energy Technology: Gaps and Barriers.” SI Ocean. https://www.marineenergywales.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/Gaps-and-Barriers-Report-FV.pdf.
Margolis, R, and J Zuboy. 2006. “Nontechnical Barriers to Solar Energy Use: Review of Recent
Literature.” National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL).
Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. 2020. 225 CMR 20.00: Solar Massachusetts Renewable
Target (SMART) Program. https://www.mass.gov/doc/225-cmr-2000-solar-massachusetts-
renewable-target-smart-program/download.
Mendelsohn, Michael, and John Harper. 2012. Ҥ1603 Treasury Grant Expiration: Industry Insight on
Financing and Market Implications.” Renewable Energy, 41.
Mesbahi, Mina, and Saori Minamino. 2018. “Solarplaza Top 70 Floating Solar PV Plants.” Solarplaza.
January 3, 2018. https://www.solarplaza.com/channels/top-10s/11761/top-70-floating-solar-pv-
plants/.
Morris, Ellen, Jennye Greene, and Victoria Healey. 2019. “Blueprint Guide for Creating Gender-Sensitive
Energy Policies.”
Morton, Laura. 2012. “Interagency Activites Related to Siting and Permitting.” June 27.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/07/f25/June%2028%20-
%20Renewable%20Energy%20at%20DOE%20-%20Morton_0.pdf.
Noll, Elizabeth, and David Hart. 2019. “Less Certain Than Death: Using Tax Incentives to Drive Clean
Energy Innovation.” INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, 27.
Paton, Celine. 2021. “Global Market Trends – Floating Solar.” Internal (Unpublished), March 11.

25
Pouran, Hamid M. 2018. “From Collapsed Coal Mines to Floating Solar Farms, Why China’s New Power
Stations Matter.” Energy Policy 123 (December): 414–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.09.010.
PV Magazine. 2019. “South Korea’s 2.1 GW Floating Solar Project Overcomes First Hurdle.” Pv
Magazine International. November 4, 2019. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/11/04/south-
koreas-2-1-gw-floating-solar-project-overcomes-first-hurdle/.
———. 2020. “Floating Solar PV Gains Global Momentum.” Pv Magazine International. September 22,
2020. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/09/22/floating-solar-pv-gains-global-momentum/.
Reindl, Dr Thomas, and Celine Paton. 2020. “Where Sun Meet Water: Global Market Status, Project
Database and Economics.” Keynote presented at the Solarplaza 2020 Floating Solar Conference,
Online, November 3.
RenewAfrica. 2020. “Ghana Switches on First Floating Solar-Hydro Hybrid Power System.” Renew
Africa (blog). December 10, 2020. http://renewafrica.biz/2020/12/10/ghana-switches-on-first-
floating-solar-hydro-hybrid-power-system/.
Rosa-Clot, Marco, and Giuseppe Marco Tina. 2018a. “Chapter 5 - The Floating PV Plant.” In Submerged
and Floating Photovoltaic Systems, edited by Marco Rosa-Clot and Giuseppe Marco Tina, 89–
136. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812149-8.00005-3.
———, eds. 2018b. Submerged and Floating Photovoltaic Systems: Modelling, Design and Case Studies.
Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812149-8.00001-6.
Sahu, Alok, Neha Yadav, and K. Sudhakar. 2016. “Floating Photovoltaic Power Plant: A Review.”
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 66 (December): 815–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.051.
Seetharaman, Krishna Moorthy, Nitin Patwa, Saravanan, and Yash Gupta. 2019. “Breaking Barriers in
Deployment of Renewable Energy.” Heliyon 5 (1).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01166.
Spencer, Robert S., Jordan Macknick, Alexandra Aznar, Adam Warren, and Matthew O. Reese. 2018.
“Floating Photovoltaic Systems: Assessing the Technical Potential of Photovoltaic Systems on
Man-Made Water Bodies in the Continental United States.” Environmental Science &
Technology, December. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b04735.
Taiyang News. 2020. “Lowered Solar FIT Rates Come Into Effect In Taiwan | TaiyangNews.” January 3,
2020. http://taiyangnews.info/markets/lowered-solar-fit-rates-come-into-effect-in-taiwan/.
Tan, Meishi. 2017. “How Chinese Policies Can Control the Global PV Market.” Apricum - The Cleantech
Advisory. May 16, 2017. https://www.apricum-group.com/how-china-can-control-the-global-pv-
market/.
Tegen, Suzanne. 2015. “Wind Power Siting: Public Acceptance and Land Use.” Presented at the
WINDExchange Webinar, June 17. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64534.pdf.
Teixeira, Luis E., Johan Caux, Alexandre Beluco, Ivo Bertoldo, José Antônio S. Louzada, and Ricardo C.
Eifler. 2015. “Feasibility Study of a Hydro PV Hybrid System Operating at a Dam for Water
Supply in Southern Brazil.” Journal of Power and Energy Engineering 03 (09): 70.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jpee.2015.39006.
Tom Kenning. 2020. “SECI Issues 1.2GW Hybrid Renewables and Floating-plus-Storage Tenders.” PV-
Tech. January 15, 2020. https://www.pv-tech.org/news/seci-issues-1.2gw-hybrid-renewables-and-
floating-plus-storage-tenders.
Urban, Frauke, Giuseppina Siciliano, Linda Wallbott, Markus Lederer, and Anh Dang Nguyen. 2018.
“Green Transformations in Vietnam’s Energy Sector.” Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies 5 (3):
558–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.251.
Ven, Rens van de. 2019. “The Netherlands in 2030: (Almost) Halfway the Elimination of Greenhouse
Gasses.” Magnus Commodities. June 25, 2019. https://www.magnuscmd.com/the-netherlands-in-
2030-almost-halfway-the-elimination-of-greenhouse-gasses/.
Versteeg, Kristiaan, Zsolt Szalay, and Ward Schuuring. 2021. “Solarplaza Top 50 Operational Floating
Solar Projects (2021).” Solarplaza. https://floatingsolar.solarplaza.com/thank-you-top-50-fpv.

26
 VietnamPlus. 2021. “Thailand to Put World’s Largest Floating Solar Farm into Use This June.”
VietnamPlus (blog). January 25, 2021. https://en.vietnamplus.vn/thailand-to-put-worlds-largest-
floating-solar-farm-into-use-this-june/195309.vnp.
Vinci, Salvatore, Divyam Nagpal, Rabia Ferroukhi, Ethan Sindler, and Anna Czajkowska. 2014.
“Adapting Renewable Energy Policies to Dynamic Market Conditions.” Abu Dhabi: IRENA.
https://www.irena.org/-
/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2014/policy_adaptation.pdf?la=en&hash=1F3855D41F
5A83DFCA45A9B58FB27804133EC78C.
White, William, Anders Lunnan, Erlend Nybakk, and Biljana Kulisic. 2013. “The Role of Governments
in Renewable Energy: The Importance of Policy Consistency.” Biomass and Bioenergy 57
(October): 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.12.035.
World Bank, ESMAP, and SERIS. 2019a. “Where Sun Meets Water: Floating Solar Market Report.” The
World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/31880/Floating-
Solar-Market-Report.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
———. 2019b. “Where Sun Meets Water: Floating Solar Handbook for Practitioners.” 143112. The
World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/418961572293438109/Where-Sun-
Meets-Water-Floating-Solar-Handbook-for-Practitioners.
WRA Environmental Consultants. 2016. “Statewide Ecological Report for the Implementation of
Hydrelio Floating Photovoltaic Arrays: State of California.” Ciel et Terre. In author’s possession.
Yamazaki, Mitsuhiro, Osamu Ikki, and RTS Corporation. 2019. “National Survey Report of PV Power
Applications in Japan.” New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization
(NEDO), IEA.
Zhu, Caroline, and Jiayin Song. 2020. “Renewable Energy Procurement Comes to China.” Pv Magazine
International. February 27, 2020. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/02/27/renewable-energy-
procurement-comes-to-china/.

www.nrel.gov/usaid-partnership

Scott C. Bartos Nathan Lee The USAID-NREL Advanced Energy Partnership for Asia
Regional Energy Advisor Technical Lead helps partner countries address the technical challenges of
USAID Regional Development Mission for Asia Advanced Energy Partnership for Asia transitioning to sustainable, secure, and market-driven
U.S. Agency for International Development National Renewable Energy Laboratory energy sectors across Asia. More information can be found
Tel: +66-2-257-3000 Tel: +1 303-384-7241 at: www.nrel.gov/usaid-partnership.
Email: sbartos@usaid.gov Email: nathan.lee@nrel.gov

NREL/TP-7A40-76867 | June 2021

27