The first US solar feed-in tariff ran in Gainesville. What it paid, and why it stopped.

I. How a feed-in tariff differs from your net-metering bill

Net metering measures the difference between what your roof makes and what your home uses, then settles up. A feed-in tariff does not net anything. It meters your gross solar output separately and pays a set rate on all of it, so the panels become a tiny power plant under contract rather than a credit against your own usage.

The price was locked for the life of the contract, on the order of 20 years, which is what made it attractive to anyone weighing a loan for panels. In exchange, GRU kept the renewable energy credits (the tradable proof that clean power was generated) and counted the solar toward its own goals. For a homeowner, the appeal was plain: a predictable check, not a variable bill offset.

II. What it paid, and the caps that filled

At launch the program paid roughly 32 cents per kilowatt-hour for smaller rooftop systems, per GRU's published feed-in tariff schedule, well above the retail power price at the time. That rate was not permanent. It stepped down in later contract years as the cost of panels fell, so a contract signed in 2009 was worth more per kilowatt-hour than one signed a few years later.

A hard annual cap sat on top of the rate, on the order of 4 megawatts a year at last public report, and those slots filled fast, with waiting lists in the early rounds. That combination, a high guaranteed rate and a hard yearly ceiling, is exactly how the European versions worked, and it produced the same result here: quick, visible uptake, then pressure on the budget behind it.

III. Why a city-owned utility wound it back

GRU belongs to the City of Gainesville, so its elected city commission sits as the utility board, and the cost of those fixed solar payments was recovered from all customers. As panel prices dropped through the early 2010s, the older high-rate contracts looked expensive next to cheaper new solar, and the politics of charging every ratepayer for them got harder.

By the mid-2010s GRU had stopped signing new feed-in tariff contracts and shifted new rooftop customers to net metering, the arrangement in place today. The exact timeline and the final rate steps are worth checking in the utility's own records rather than taking secondhand, because the program changed in stages and the public summaries do not always agree on the dates.

IV. Worth watching this month

1. Check GRU's current solar and net-metering page for the rate and interconnection terms that actually apply to a new rooftop system in Gainesville today, which is routine but changes quietly.

2. Watch the City of Gainesville commission agendas, since GRU rate and solar policy items go through that board and are posted in advance.

3. Note that Florida's net-metering rules for investor-owned utilities have been contested at the state level, which does not bind GRU directly but shapes the climate it operates in.

4. If you hold or are considering an old feed-in tariff contract, confirm its remaining term and rate against GRU's records before assuming what it pays, since these were long contracts and the terms vary by signing year.

Does GRU still offer a feed-in tariff?

No. New rooftop solar in Gainesville today goes through net metering, not a fixed feed-in rate. The 20-year contracts signed years ago are still being honored, per the utility's program history.

Was it really the first in the US?

It is widely cited as the first municipal solar feed-in tariff in the United States, launched in 2009. Earlier pilots existed elsewhere, so whether it counts as first depends on how you define the program.

Who approved and ran it?

GRU is owned by the City of Gainesville, so its elected city commission acts as the utility board. Unlike investor-owned utilities, its rates are not set by the Florida Public Service Commission.

Why did a high fixed rate matter to my bill?

The payments were recovered from all GRU customers, so the guaranteed solar rate showed up, in a small way, in what every ratepayer paid. As solar costs dropped, that fixed rate looked increasingly expensive.

Could other Florida cities still do this?

Municipal utilities set their own rates, so legally yes, but none has copied the GRU model at scale. The economics that justified it in 2009 have changed as panel prices fell.