Switzerland 149
avalanche barriers in a remote village had never been done on a commercial
scale. Everyone involved thought the project could contribute to the regional
and local economy and benefit the environment. We found this to be the major
driver for stakeholders to engage in the implementation process. Furthermore,
the project was strongly driven by the idea that this could be a model for PV
systems on avalanche defences. Most of the funding required for the project was
crowd- sourced, with some contribution from the cantonal government.
However, the federal government refused to fund the project as an innovation
pilot and the municipal assembly ultimately voted against a loan to cover the
funding shortfall. Residents, NGOs, and government officials suggested this was
due to doubt over whether sales of electricity could cover investment costs, as
well as their worries about estimates of technical difficulties, rising costs during
the decision process, and unsuccessful fundraising activities. This seems to have
increased doubts about and opposition to the project, and eventually led to an
opposing vote in the municipal assembly. Some of the stakeholders who were
opposed also felt that they did not receive the information they wanted from
the proponents of the project, and that this created a lack of trust. Better communication might have removed this risk. Furthermore, the decision of the
federal government not to fund this rural PV project was seen as inconsistent
with the national policy to promote rural development and renewable energy.
In Payerne (canton Vaud), the local utility proposed a solar farm on a plot of
agricultural land that had already been designated as an industrial area. This
project was part of a greater plan to make the village largely self- sufficient in
electricity. Local stakeholders and NGOs were involved in the planning process
and, while one NGO formally opposed the project, it did not take the project to
the courts. The project was completed in 2015 and produces around 40% of the
electricity used in the village. Stakeholders generally agreed that large roof surfaces should be used first to install solar panels, but there was a gap between traditionalists who wanted to reserve farmland for agriculture and pragmatists who
will use it for solar PV if that is more profitable. Others emphasised energy efficiency, much like in Breschnerbach, and citizens’ role in decision making, much
like in St Antoniën.
Broader implications
The potential for utility scale PV is likely quite limited in Switzerland, given
the value put on rural landscapes and agriculture, but fortunately the available
rooftop area for PV seems sufficient for Swiss purposes in several estimates (see
Gutschner et al., 2002; Compagnon, 2004). Furthermore, permitting for any
energy infrastructure is known to be a long process both inside and outside Switzerland. One utility noted that they only invest in foreign renewables projects
that have already obtained permits in order to reduce their exposure to
acceptance risk.
Utilities and renewable plant developers are particularly concerned about the
current low price of electricity in Switzerland and the EU power market, as a
avalanche barriers in a remote village had never been done on a commercial
scale. Everyone involved thought the project could contribute to the regional
and local economy and benefit the environment. We found this to be the major
driver for stakeholders to engage in the implementation process. Furthermore,
the project was strongly driven by the idea that this could be a model for PV
systems on avalanche defences. Most of the funding required for the project was
crowd- sourced, with some contribution from the cantonal government.
However, the federal government refused to fund the project as an innovation
pilot and the municipal assembly ultimately voted against a loan to cover the
funding shortfall. Residents, NGOs, and government officials suggested this was
due to doubt over whether sales of electricity could cover investment costs, as
well as their worries about estimates of technical difficulties, rising costs during
the decision process, and unsuccessful fundraising activities. This seems to have
increased doubts about and opposition to the project, and eventually led to an
opposing vote in the municipal assembly. Some of the stakeholders who were
opposed also felt that they did not receive the information they wanted from
the proponents of the project, and that this created a lack of trust. Better communication might have removed this risk. Furthermore, the decision of the
federal government not to fund this rural PV project was seen as inconsistent
with the national policy to promote rural development and renewable energy.
In Payerne (canton Vaud), the local utility proposed a solar farm on a plot of
agricultural land that had already been designated as an industrial area. This
project was part of a greater plan to make the village largely self- sufficient in
electricity. Local stakeholders and NGOs were involved in the planning process
and, while one NGO formally opposed the project, it did not take the project to
the courts. The project was completed in 2015 and produces around 40% of the
electricity used in the village. Stakeholders generally agreed that large roof surfaces should be used first to install solar panels, but there was a gap between traditionalists who wanted to reserve farmland for agriculture and pragmatists who
will use it for solar PV if that is more profitable. Others emphasised energy efficiency, much like in Breschnerbach, and citizens’ role in decision making, much
like in St Antoniën.
Broader implications
The potential for utility scale PV is likely quite limited in Switzerland, given
the value put on rural landscapes and agriculture, but fortunately the available
rooftop area for PV seems sufficient for Swiss purposes in several estimates (see
Gutschner et al., 2002; Compagnon, 2004). Furthermore, permitting for any
energy infrastructure is known to be a long process both inside and outside Switzerland. One utility noted that they only invest in foreign renewables projects
that have already obtained permits in order to reduce their exposure to
acceptance risk.
Utilities and renewable plant developers are particularly concerned about the
current low price of electricity in Switzerland and the EU power market, as a