DOCSLIB.ORG

Net Metering Policy Summary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Net Metering Policy Summary Net Metering Policy Summary State Authority Capacity Limits Carry‐over of Surcharge or Avoided Community Multiple Application NEG additional cost Cost or or virtual net accounts for connection Retail Rate metering (aggregate) for NEG Montana 69‐8‐601 50 kW Month‐to‐ No, prohibited in Retail No No IOUs that through month. Credit statute have 69‐8‐605, to utility at restructured MCA the end of in accordance the year with Title 69, chapter 8 Wyoming 37‐16‐ 25 kW Month‐to‐ No, prohibited in Month‐to‐ No No IOUs, electric 101 month. Credit statute month cooperatives, through to customer credited per and irrigation 37‐16‐ at the end of kWh at retail districts 104, WS the year rate*. Annually utility purchases at avoided‐cost rate Idaho Tariff 25 kW for Month‐to‐ $100 application Residential No May transfer IOUs have residential and month. fee. Net metering and small excess developed a (Idaho small Excess credits tariff — including commercial generation tariff to allow Power as commercial carry forward current rate customers, between net metering example. indefinitely structure and credited at meters that is Schedule 100 kW for until entirely interconnection retail rate. among approved by 84.) other rate used to offset requirements — Large customer the PUC classes consumption does not commercial accounts if represent and meters are Utility tariffs guarantee of agricultural on same limit to 0.1% in future pricing customers, primary baseline year credited at feeder, 85% located on avoided‐cost same rate contiguous property, and electricity is for customer Nevada NRS 1 MW Month‐to‐ For systems up to Either a No Hydro with a IOUs 704.766 – month or 25 kW, utility standard capacity up 704.775 Generation time of use. prohibited from rate to 1 MW capacity may Excess credits charging a fee schedule or a may offset not exceed the carry forward greater than time of use electricity on limit on indefinitely other customers rate multiple demand that until entirely in the same rate schedule contiguous the class of used to offset class. For systems properties customer may consumption greater than 25 Standard owned by place on the kW, utility may rate the utility's system require payment schedule customer or 100% of the accumulate for upgrades to customer's the utility's credits at a Wind annual system, excluding constant installed electricity standby charges level. Time of during 2012 requirements, required to make use are billed on property whichever is the customer's at different owned or greater system rates at leased by an compatible different institution of IOUs must times of the offer net day higher learning and metering until the aggregate used for If the utility capacity of all research and installs net‐metered workforce system, then systems in the training may the state equals 3% aggregate electricity is of the peak generated by capacity of all the utility utilities and is used to comply with the state's RPS. If the customer installs the system , the PUC issues credits 1 State Authority Capacity Limits Carry‐over of Surcharge or Avoided Community Multiple Application NEG additional cost Cost or or virtual net accounts for connection Retail Rate metering (aggregate) for NEG Colorado For IOUs, Month‐to‐ Standard IOU Yes. Yes. IOUs, CRS 40‐2‐ systems sized month. IOU application fee customers Solar gardens Customer cooperatives, 124 and up to 120% of customers between $100 credited at that generate must give 30 and CRS the customer's may make a 1 and $1,000, retail rate. no more than days’ notice, municipal 40‐9.5‐ annual average time election depending on size After 12‐ 2 MW and are and specify utilities 302(3) consumption to indefinitely of the system month cycle, located near the order in go month‐to customers a community which they For coops and month or be Fees can include may roll over with at least want kWh municipals, annually fees include, but credit 10 credits residential reimbursed. are not indefinitely subscribers to applied to systems up to limited to, service or receive the multiple 10 kW in Coops and and facility fee, payment at generating meters. All capacity and municipals general rate average facility affected commercial credited schedule hourly meters must and industrial month‐to‐ adjustment and incremental be on the systems up to month and renewable energy cost. same rate 25 kW annually standard schedule adjustment Coops and municipals credited at retail rate month‐to‐ month and annually at a rate determined by the utility North Tariff 100 kW Purchased by Utility may Avoided No No IOUs Dakota utility month‐ recover metering cost, similar (ND to‐month costs associated to QFs. Some Admin. with production utilities Code monitoring include a REC 69‐09‐ adder 07) Washington Chapter 100 kW Month‐to‐ No. Prohibited in Retail rate Yes. Yes. IOUs, 80.60 month. Credit statute. Community In a billing municipal RCW Cumulative to utility at solar projects month, after utilities, and capacity could the end of in 2005 that the primary cooperative not exceed the year are up to 75 meter’s utilities 0.25% of a kW in utility bill is utility’s peak capacity. offset, any demand during Individuals, excess 1996, but local credits are increased to government, credited 0.5% in 2014 and business equally to can the participate customer’s and facilities remaining can be locally meters for or utility the following owned month 2 Net Metering Summaries from the U.S. Department of Energy: Wyoming http://energy.gov/savings/net‐metering‐40 Under Wyoming’s net‐metering law, investor‐owned utilities, electric cooperatives, and irrigation districts must offer customers with bi‐ directional electric meters the option to net meter. Net excess generation (NEG) produced by the customer is carried forward on a monthly basis. At the end of a 12‐month period, payment for NEG is reconciled with the customer at an agreed rate. Under the net‐metering law, eligible technologies systems include photovoltaics, wind, hydroelectric, and biomass systems up to 25 kW in size. When production exceeds the customer’s needs over a month period, they are credited per kWh of NEG at their retail rate*. At the end of a 12‐ month cycle, the utility will purchase any unused renewable energy credits for NEG at the utility's avoided‐cost rate. Under the law, utilities may not charge customers’ fees in addition to minimum monthly charges that apply to other utility customers in similar rate classes. *The PSC has given utilities the freedom to apply rates other than the retail rate to monthly NEG. For instance, the Wyrulec Co. approved by the PSC in April 2008 applies the avoided‐cost rate to monthly NEG to arrive at a monetary credit that is applied to the customer's next bill. Other utilities such as Rocky Mountain Power credit monthly NEG as a kWh credit, or full retail rate. Systems must meet NEC, IEEE and UL technical standards. In addition, system owners must install a manual, lockable external disconnect switch and are responsible for all costs related to any modifications to the systems that may be required by the electric utility for purposes of safety and reliability. The Wyoming Public Service Commission (PSC) is authorized to adopt additional control and testing requirements necessary to protect public safety and system reliability. Idaho http://energy.gov/savings/idaho‐power‐net‐metering Idaho does not have a statewide net‐metering policy. However, each of the state's three investor‐owned utilities ‐‐ Avista Utilities, Idaho Power and Rocky Mountain Power ‐‐ has developed a net‐metering tariff that has been approved by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The framework of the utilities' net‐metering programs is similar in that each utility: offers net metering to customers that generate electricity using solar, wind, hydropower, biomass or fuel cells; limits residential systems to 25 kW; limits aggregate net‐metered capacity to 0.1% of the utility's peak demand in a baseline year (2000 for Idaho Power); and restricts any single customer from generating more than 20% of the aggregate capacity of all net‐metered systems. For residential and small commercial customers, NEG is credited at Idaho Power's retail rate and carried forward to the next month. For large commercial and agricultural customers, NEG is credited at 85% of the utility's avoided‐cost rate and carried forward to the next month. Under Idaho Power's net‐metering tariff, the customer is responsible for "all costs associated with any [utility] additions, modifications, or upgrades to any [utility] facilities that the [utility] determines are necessary as a result of the installation of the [generator] in order to maintain a safe, reliable electrical system." Nevada http://energy.gov/savings/net‐metering‐22 Nevada's original net‐metering law was enacted in 1997. It has been amended several times. Systems up to 1 MW in capacity that generate electricity using solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and certain types of hydropower are allowed. Systems greater than 100 kW in capacity may be subject to certain costs at the utility's discretion. A system is not eligible for net metering if its generating capacity exceeds the greater of the limit on demand that the class of customer of the customer‐generator may place on the utility's system or 100% of the customer's annual electricity requirements. Each IOU operating in Nevada offers net metering until the aggregate capacity of all net‐metered systems in the state equals 3% of the peak capacity of all utilities operating in the state. For net‐metered systems up to 25 kW, utilities must offer the customer‐generator a meter capable of registering the flow of electricity in two directions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Smart Metering and Smart Charging May Help a Local Energy Community in Collective Self-Consumption in Presence of Electric Vehicles
    energies Article How Smart Metering and Smart Charging may Help a Local Energy Community in Collective Self-Consumption in Presence of Electric Vehicles Giuseppe Barone 1 , Giovanni Brusco 1 , Daniele Menniti 1 , Anna Pinnarelli 1 , Gaetano Polizzi 1, Nicola Sorrentino 1, Pasquale Vizza 1 and Alessandro Burgio 2,* 1 Department of Mechanical, Energy and Management Engineering, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy; [email protected] (G.B.); [email protected] (G.B.); [email protected] (D.M.); [email protected] (A.P.); [email protected] (G.P.); [email protected] (N.S.); [email protected] (P.V.) 2 Independent Researcher, 87036 Rende, Italy * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 11 July 2020; Accepted: 4 August 2020; Published: 12 August 2020 Abstract: The 2018/2001/EU renewable energy directive (RED II) underlined the strategic role of energy communities in the EU transition process towards sustainable and renewable energy. In line with the path traced by RED II, this paper proposes a solution that may help local energy communities in increasing self-consumption. The proposed solution is based on the combination of smart metering and smart charging. A set of smart meters returns the profile of each member of the community with a time resolution of 5 s; the aggregator calculates the community profile and regulates the charging of electric vehicles accordingly. An experimental test is performed on a local community composed of four users, where the first is a consumer with a Nissan Leaf, whereas the remaining three users are prosumers with a photovoltaic generator mounted on the roof of their home.
    [Show full text]
  • Italy's Effort to Phase out and Rationalise Its Fossil Fuel Subsidies
    ITALY’S EFFORT TO PHASE OUT AND RATIONALISE ITS FOSSIL-FUEL SUBSIDIES A REPORT ON THE G20 PEER-REVIEW OF INEFFICIENT FOSSIL-FUEL SUBSIDIES THAT ENCOURAGE WASTEFUL CONSUMPTION IN ITALY PREPARED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE PEER-REVIEW TEAM: ARGENTINA, CANADA, CHILE, CHINA, FRANCE, GERMANY, INDONESIA, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, IEA, UN ENVIRONMENT, IISD, EUROPEAN ENERGY RETAILERS, GREEN BUDGET EUROPE, THE OECD (CHAIR OF THE PEER-REVIEW) AND SELECTED EXPERTS APRIL 2019 1 │ Italy’s effort to phase out and rationalise its fossil-fuel subsidies A report on the G20 peer-review of inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption in Italy Prepared by the members of the peer-review team: Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, Indonesia, Netherlands, New Zealand, IEA, UN Environment, IISD, European Energy Retailers, Green Budget Europe, the OECD (Chair of the peer-review) and selected experts ITALY’S EFFORT TO PHASE OUT AND RATIONALISE ITS FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES 2 │ Table of contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 5 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1. Background and context ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Propane & Net Zero
    PROPANE & NET ZERO WHY NET ZERO IS IMPORTANT “Net zero” refers to achieving an overall balance between emissions produced and emissions taken out of the atmosphere. Propane can help reduce CO2 emissions by replacing heavy carbons like coal, oil and even wood. Its affordability also ensures every consumer can share equitably in the benefits propane brings. PROPANE DECARBONIZES PROPANE ENSURES EQUITY Clean and renewable energy like propane Access to clean, affordable and renewable energy accelerates decarbonization. like propane ensures equity on the path to zero. Δ Decarbonization requires more cleaner energy options. The Δ Urban and rural low-income households, especially U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Scientific and African American and Latinx households, spend roughly Technical Information says that large emissions reductions three times as much of their income on energy costs are achievable through a broad range of opportunities, as non-low-income households. In February 2021, EIA including the use of low- or zero-carbon alternatives. reported that electricity was 68% more expensive per million BTUs than propane. Δ The electric grid isn’t always the cleanest answer. Currently, propane-fueled medium- and heavy-duty Δ Energy should be affordable, so that no one has to vehicles provide a lower carbon footprint solution in 38 go without, but the share of income that low-income U.S. states when compared to medium- and heavy-duty households spent on electricity rose by 1/3 in the last EVs charged from the electrical grid. decade. Δ Propane is innovating everyday. It is, in fact, the new Δ Everyone should have access to clean energy and home diesel.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Behind-The-Meter Solar-Plus-Storage
    AN OVERVIEW OF BEHIND-THE- METER SOLAR-PLUS-STORAGE REGULATORY DESIGN Approaches and Case Studies to Inform International Applications Owen Zinaman, Thomas Bowen, and Alexandra Aznar National Renewable Energy Laboratory March 2020 A product of the USAID-NREL partnership Contract No. IAG-17-2050 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. IAG-17-2050. 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 471670114. NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content. Acknowledgments The authors thank Anurag Mishra and Sarah Lawson from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Office of Energy and Infrastructure for their support of this work. We also wish to thank the following individuals for their detailed review comments, insights, and contributions to this report (names listed alphabetically by organization and last name). Clean Energy Group—Seth Mullendore E3 Analytics—Toby
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Net Metering Report for 2019
    ANNUAL NET METERING REPORT FOR 2019 April 3, 2020 Manager, Energy Department Missouri Public Service Commission Pursuant to 20 CSR 4240-20.065 (10)(A), Evergy Missouri Metro and Evergy Missouri West submits the following Annual Net Metering Report for 2019. Item (A) 1 of the following table represents the total number of customer-generator facilities connected to our distribution system at year end. Item (A) 2 represents the total estimated generating capacity of customer-generators that are connected to our distribution system. Item (A) 3 represents the total estimated net kilowatt-hours received from customer- generators. Generating Net kWhs Customers Capacity (kW) Received (A) 1 (A) 2 (A) 3 Evergy Missouri Metro 2,107 31,804.21 10,961,098 Evergy Missouri West 2,560 45,282.12 20,302,687 Total 4,667 77,086.32 31,263,876 Also, pursuant to 20 CSR 4240-20.065 (10)(B), please find enclosed a copy of the standard information, Attachment A, regarding net metering and interconnection requirements provided to customers or posted on the Company’s website. This information can also be found at the following link: https://www.evergy.com/smart-energy/renewable-resources/private-solar-and-net-metering Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lisa Casteel Regulatory Affairs 816-556-2705 Public Attachment A Public FILED Missouri Public Service Commission EE-2019-0056; JE-2019-0028 FILED Missouri Public Service Commission EE-2019-0056; JE-2019-0028 FILED Missouri Public Service Commission EE-2019-0056; JE-2019-0028 KCP&L GREATER MISSOURI OPERATIONS COMPANY P.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance
    GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance An amendment to the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard AUTHOR Mary Sotos GHG PROTOCOL TEAM Pankaj Bhatia, World Resources Institute Cynthia Cummis, World Resources Institute Mark Didden, World Business Council for Sustainable Development Alex Kovac, World Resources Institute Josh Ryor, World Resources Institute Amanda Stevens, World Resources Institute Table of Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 Business Goals 14 3 Accounting and Reporting Principles 20 4 Scope 2 Accounting Methods 24 5 Identifying Scope 2 Emissions and Setting the Scope 2 Boundary 32 6 Calculating Emissions 42 7 Accounting and Reporting Requirements 58 8 Recommended Reporting on Instrument Features and Policy Context 66 9 Setting Reduction Targets and Tracking Emissions Over Time 74 BACKGROUND READING 10 Key Concepts and Background in Energy Attribute Certificates and Claims 78 11 How Companies Can Drive Electricity Supply Changes with the Market-Based Method 88 AppENDICES A Accounting for Steam, Heat, and Cooling 94 B Accounting for Energy-Related Emissions Throughout the Value Chain 96 Abbreviations 98 Glossary 99 References 108 Recognitions 111 1 Detailed Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 4 4 SCOPE 2 ACCOUNTING METHODS 24 1.1 The GHG Protocol 5 4.1 Approaches to accounting scope 2 25 1.2 The Corporate Standard’s 4.2 Emission rate approach 27 approach to scope 2 emissions 5 4.3 The decision-making value of each 1.3 Key questions on scope 2 accounting method’s results 28 and reporting 6 1.4 Purpose of this Guidance 7 5 IDENTIFYING SCOPE 2 EMISSIONS
    [Show full text]
  • USAID Energy Storage Decision Guide for Policymakers
    USAID ENERGY STORAGE FOR DECISION GUIDE POLICYMAKERS www.greeningthegrid.org | www.nrel.gov/usaid-partnership USAID ENERGY STORAGE FO R DECISION GUIDE P OLICYMAKERS Authors Ilya Chernyakhovskiy, Thomas Bowen, Carishma Gokhale-Welch, Owen Zinaman National Renewable Energy Laboratory July 2021 View the companion report: USAID Grid-Scale Energy Storage Technologies Primer www.greeningthegrid.org | www.nrel.gov/usaid-partnership Prepared by 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. IAG-17-2050. 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. Front cover: photo from iStock 506609532; Back cover: photo from iStock 506611252 NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content. Acknowledgments The authors are greatly indebted to several individuals for their support and guidance. We wish to thank Sarah Lawson, Andrew Fang, and Sarah Dimson at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for their thoughtful reviews. We also wish to thank Peerapat Vithayasrichareon, Jacques Warichet, Enrique Gutierrez Tavarez, and Luis Lopez at the International Energy Agency, and Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Net Metering: in Brief
    Net Metering: In Brief November 14, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46010 SUMMARY R46010 Net Metering: In Brief November 14, 2019 Net metering is a policy that allows electricity customers with their own generation capacity to be financially compensated for the energy they produce. Net metering is widely regarded as having Ashley J. Lawson an important role in deployment of distributed generation (DG), especially solar energy. State Analyst in Energy Policy and local governments have authority to establish net metering policies, and some have done so for many years. Congress took action to encourage net metering in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05), and the policy now exists, in some form, in 45 states. Recent state net metering policy modifications, and potential effects on solar energy deployment, may be relevant to congressional discussions regarding the role of renewable energy sources in the nation’s electricity system. Solar photovoltaic panels (e.g., rooftop solar) accounted for 97% of the generation capacity participating in net metering programs in 2018. Net metering participation roughly quadrupled from 2013 to 2018, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Hawaii has the highest participation rate of any state, with 15% of electricity customers participating in net metering in 2018. In a majority of states, however, net metering customers account for less than 1% of total electricity customers. States differ in the way net metering customers are compensated. A common method is the retail rate, under which energy from net metering capacity offsets energy consumed from the grid in a one-to-one fashion.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Analysis of Net Metering and Feed in Tariff Schemes for 50Kw Solar Photovoltaic Distributed Generation System at Mahad Ganesh Dahale*, Prof
    IJRECE VOL. 6 ISSUE 2 APR.-JUNE 2018 ISSN: 2393-9028 (PRINT) | ISSN: 2348-2281 (ONLINE) Comparative Analysis of Net Metering and Feed in Tariff Schemes for 50kw Solar Photovoltaic Distributed Generation System at Mahad Ganesh Dahale*, Prof. Sunil Gaikwad and Prof. Dr. Y.P. Nerkar Department of Electrical Engineering, PVG's COET, Pune, India Abstract: Solar Photovoltaic (PV) system compared to its takes place through grid. Feed in tariff (FiT) or renewable scenario a decade ago has made a great impact in energy energy payment method is applied to those distributed energy production. Government provides several benefits to the systems producing electricity by their own. FiT has two tariffs customers in terms of subsidies, benefits in income-taxes and i.e. for its generation and its own consumption.Both methods many other such benefits. Tariff by Net metering i.e. Net metering and FiT prove to be cost and energy effective schemeregulated by the Government provides benefits to the and provide reduction in CO2 emission. However, the latter consumer applicable for various distributed generation system. provides more effective result in terms of cost and energy. In this paper, a new scheme of Feed in Tariff (FiT) for metering the total amount of energy generated has been This paper provides the statistical analysis between Net metering and Feed in Tariff applied on a 50kWp solar roof top discussed. A case study on 50 kW Laxmi Ice factory at Mahad, Maharashtra is considered in this paper. A PV application. This is applied at Laxmi Ice Factory in Mahad, Maharashtra at an altitude 11m and latitude 18.1N and MATLAB/Simulink model consisting 50 kW solar PV system, FiT& Net metering, solar radiance value is simulated.
    [Show full text]
  • REFORMING NET METERING Tom Tanton PROVIDING a BRIGHT and EQUITABLE FUTURE
    ALEC.ORG REFORMING NET METERING Tom Tanton PROVIDING A BRIGHT AND EQUITABLE FUTURE WWW.ALEC.ORG 1 About the American Legislative Exchange Council The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the nation’s largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators, with more than 2,000 members across the nation. ALEC is committed to advancing the fundamental principles of limited government, free markets and federalism at the state level through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America’s state legislators, members of the private sector, and the general public. ALEC is classified by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, public policy, and educational organization. Individuals, philanthropic foundations, corporations, companies, or associations are eligible to support ALEC’s work through tax-deductible gifts. About the ALEC Task Force on Energy, Environment and Agriculture The ALEC Task Force on Energy, Environment and Agriculture promotes the mutually beneficial link between a robust economy and a healthy environment, and seeks to enhance the quality and use of our natural and agricultural resources for the benefit of human health and well-being. The Task Force works with more than 250 public and private-sector members to develop best practice model policy on issues such as climate change, agriculture, environmental health, regulatory reform, federalism, chemical regulation, property rights, waste management, and public lands. John Eick is the task force director and can be reached at
    [Show full text]
  • DC Power Production, Delivery and Utilization
    DDCC PPowerower PProduction,roduction, DDeliveryelivery aandnd UUtilizationtilization An EPRI White Paper June 2006 AAnn EEPRIPRI WWhitehite PPaperaper DC Power Production, Delivery and Utilization This paper was prepared by Karen George of EPRI Solutions, Inc., based on technical material from: Arshad Mansoor, Vice President, EPRI Solutions Clark Gellings, Vice President—Innovation, EPRI Dan Rastler, Tech Leader, Distributed Resources, EPRI Don Von Dollen, Program Director, IntelliGrid, EPRI AAcknowledgementscknowledgements We would like to thank reviewers and contributors: Phil Barker, Principal Engineer, Nova Energy Specialists David Geary, Vice President, of Engineering, Baldwin Technologies, Inc. Haresh Kamath, EPRI Solutions Tom Key, Principal Technical Manager, EPRI Annabelle Pratt, Power Architect, Intel Corporation Mark Robinson, Vice President, Nextek Power Copyright ©2006 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA USA June 2006 Page 2 AAnn EEPRIPRI WWhitehite PPaperaper DC Power Production, Delivery and Utilization Edison Redux: The New AC/DC Debate Thomas Edison’s nineteenth-century electric distribution sys- Several converging factors have spurred the recent interest in tem relied on direct current (DC) power generation, delivery, DC power delivery. One of the most important is that an in- and use. This pioneering system, however, turned out to be im- creasing number of microprocessor-based electronic devices practical and uneconomical, largely because in the 19th cen- use DC power internally, converted inside the device from tury, DC power generation was limited to a relatively low volt- standard AC supply. Another factor is that new distributed re- age potential and DC power could not be transmitted beyond sources such as solar photovoltaic (PV) arrays and fuel cells a mile.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Net Metering Schemes for PV Self-Consumption in Denmark
    energies Article Analysis of the Net Metering Schemes for PV Self-Consumption in Denmark Helena Martín * , Jordi de la Hoz, Arnau Aliana, Sergio Coronas and José Matas Electrical Engineering Department, Escola d’Enginyeria de Barcelona Est, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, 08019 Barcelona, Spain; [email protected] (J.d.l.H.); [email protected] (A.A.); [email protected] (S.C.); [email protected] (J.M.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The current Danish regulatory framework BEK 999/2016 for hourly net settled new PV facilities is analysed in detail, evaluating the technical and economic differences between the several envisioned schemes. In addition to the saved cost of the self-consumed energy, the transmission system operator (TSO) tariffs and the public service obligation (PSO) tax are avoided for the self- consumed energy. Advantages regarding the electricity tax and VAT can also be obtained but according to a more varied casuistry, with a particular incentivizing effect for the residential cus- tomers. The installation-connected type group 2 is found the cheaper scheme and the billing concepts responsible for its minor cost are identified. This analysis is expected to contribute to discerning the different economic outcomes of the various schemes, helping to take informed investment decisions. Transcending the local value, some common characteristics of this complex framework that can also be found in other regulations may ease the comprehension of the leverage points and the policy instruments for modulating the economic results of the facilities and in this way also their path of deployment. Citation: Martín, H.; de la Hoz, J.; Aliana, A.; Coronas, S.; Matas, J.
    [Show full text]