Killing Solar
Overview
Killing Solar (Korean: 태양광 죽이기) is a South Korean current-affairs term used critically to refer to changes in policy, institutions, regulations, and the market environment that shrink the spread and industrial base of solar power. It is mainly used by the renewable energy industry, environmental groups, and some academics in the context of criticizing the government's institutional reforms or strengthened siting regulations. Conversely, the government and some energy experts rebut that these are 'normalization' measures to correct problems such as excessive deployment, poor construction, power grid burden, and electricity rate distortions.
Main Content
Nature of the Term
'Killing Solar' is not a neutral term defined academically but a rhetorical expression formed in policy-critical discourse. Therefore, regarding the same institutional change, one side calls it a 'deployment-shrinking policy,' while the other evaluates it as 'establishing market order.' The very fact that this term has spread shows the intensity of conflict surrounding South Korea's energy policy.
Background
In 2017, with the announcement of the Renewable Energy 3020 Implementation Plan and the full-scale operation of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the REC (Renewable Energy Certificate) weighting system, solar facilities increased rapidly. In particular, so-called 'mountain solar' installed on mountain and farmland areas surged, and issues such as damage to forest land, landscape problems, grid saturation, and subsidy controversies emerged together. Afterwards, as institutional reforms to control the pace of deployment continued, the expression 'Killing Solar' appeared.
Key Issues
1. REC weighting and RPS reform: Lowering weights or adjusting mandatory ratios directly reduces project profitability.
2. Siting regulations: The Mountainous Districts Management Act, Farmland Act, and local governments' separation distance ordinances significantly reduce available sites for installation.
3. Grid connection and curtailment: Long waiting periods for connection, substation saturation, and output limits undermine the economics of power generation projects.
4. Electricity rates and utility finances: The logic of KEPCO's deficits and rate distortions combines with debates over the cost of expanding renewable energy.
5. Reduction of subsidies and tax support: Loans, tax credits, and reforms to the feed-in tariff system are also issues.
Both Sides of the Debate
Those who support stronger regulations cite forest damage, poor construction and fires, dependence on Chinese modules, electricity rate burdens, and grid stability problems. Critics worry about retreat in responding to the climate crisis, weakened capacity to respond to RE100 and carbon border adjustments, energy security, the collapse of jobs and the industrial ecosystem, and the loss of local income bases. In particular, because solar power has a value chain extending from modules and inverters to construction and maintenance, many point out that reducing deployment leads not merely to fewer facilities but to a shrinking industrial ecosystem.
Latest Trends
In 2024–2025, the axis of the debate expanded. First, as the rapid increase in power demand from AI data centers and the semiconductor industry brought securing carbon-free power to the center of industrial policy, the debate over the pace of renewable energy deployment combined with the issue of companies' ability to fulfill RE100. Second, in the process of setting the Basic Plan for Electricity Supply and Demand and the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), disputes over renewable energy targets are being repeated. Third, as oversupply and price collapse of Chinese modules worsened the profitability of domestic module manufacturers, the discourse of 'Killing Solar' expanded beyond installation deployment to a crisis theory for the manufacturing industry. Fourth, as delays in grid connection and insufficient transmission networks have not been resolved, alternatives such as easing siting regulations, expanding grid investment, and linking energy storage systems (ESS) are being discussed together. Entering 2025, as discussions on reorganizing the energy policy stance gained momentum, voices demanding both deregulation and industrial promotion and voices arguing that controlling the pace of deployment is inevitable still confront each other.
Related Topics
- [[Renewable Energy]]
- [[RPS System]]
- [[Energy Transition]]
- [[Nuclear Phase-out Policy]]
- [[Power Grid]]
- [[RE100]]
- [[Carbon Neutrality]]