Grading the Net-Metering Program, One State at a Time

A consortium of U.S. net-metering advocates have graded each state for its net metering and grid interconnection policies.

A group of net-metering advocates in the United States has released a report grading each state's policies on allowing residents and businesses to get compensated for feeding excessive electricity from their renewable energy systems to the electric grid.

The 112-page report, "Freeing the Grid," gave 15 states an "A" or "B" for making it relatively easy and affordable to connect their solar, wind or other types of systems to the grid (see report for explanations of the grades). Back in 2007, only one state got the high mark.

The report gave 27 states an "A" or "B" for net-metering rules that allow residents to get credit for sending unused electricity to the grid. That's also a big jump from 2007, when 13 states won that recognition.

The Network for New Energy Choices prepared this third, annual report. It worked with Vote Solar, the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, the Solar Alliance and the North Carolina Solar Center.

Not surprisingly, many states with mandates for their utilities to boost their offerings of renewable electricity also have incentives in place to entice consumers to install renewable energy systems. Net-metering policies exist in 42 states and Washington, D.C.

California, which has been ahead of other states in adopting policies and subsidies that are friendly to renewable energy, has scored well, getting an "A" for net metering and "B" for interconnection.

Texas, the big wind energy producing state, has no net-metering program and received a "D" for its interconnection standards, which include technical and legal requirements.

Some state have both kinds of policies, but those policies appear onerous and costly to the report's authors. Georgia, for one, got an "F" for both. States that flunked in one category or the other included Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Wyoming, Utah and Minnesota.

Net-metering policies are meant to promote generating solar, wind or biomass electricity where it's consumed. Solar energy system owners could export extra electricity to the grid and get credits on their bills that are equivalent to the retail price.

But writing and deploying effective net-metering programs is far from simple. And whether they are cost effective is subject to debate.

In California, a legislative effort to raise the cap for net-metering customers prompted utilities to question whether net metering benefits a small group of people at the expense of those who can't afford or choose not to install solar. Utilities typically recoup the cost of the programs they run seeking rate hikes that apply to their overall customer base.

California has yet to answer a thorny question about whether net-metering customers are paying their fair share of the costs of maintaining the electric grid. The California Public Utilities Commission is due to release a report in January that will examine this and other issues.

Some utilities in other states are grappling with similar issues (see Xcel Looks for Grid Upkeep Fee From Solar Customers).

Efforts to raise the net-metering cap in California didn't succeed. Some lawmakers tried to raise the cap from 2.5 percent to as much as 10 percent, but failed to muster enough votes to send the bill to the governor for signature this year (see Cal Net Metering Bill Stalls).

The Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which serves central and northern California, then agreed to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's request to increase the cap to 3.5 percent. The utility, which was close to hit the 2.5 percent ceiling, would stop accepting new net-metering customers when the overall generation capacity from existing net-metering customers' systems reaches 3.5 percent of the load.

In the "Freeing the Grid" report, good interconnection standards refer to rules that clearly spell out the technical and legal mandates. They also do not impose expensive fees or add costs by requiring devices such as redundant disconnect switches, which the report said adds to the cost of installing solar without providing the intended safety assurances.

Good net-metering rules should make it easy for consumers to earn credits from their utilities for feeing excessive electricity to grid, the report said. Of course, advocates want states to forego restrictions on the size of solar energy systems or the types of customers who can participate in net metering. 

Photo via Flickr/Creative Commons.

6 Comments

  • JoeJoe 11/24/09 4:14 PM

    Rooferguy… Are you seeing noticeably larger system sizes as a result of dropping panel prices? Where do you think the average system size at the residential level will plateau? I suppose Germany must be close to the practical limit for residential rooftop systems. Hmmm…

    As system sizes increase you’d expect there to be more surplus energy. What do you think is the fairest way to price this electricity?  I figure the most likely customers for PV would be those who use a lot of electricity. As you know, the tier 5 rate in California is 44 cents. If you have fewer tier 5 rate payers I figure this will most definitely lead to higher prices for the remaining rate payers. How can this be avoided?

    Reply
      • StevePluvia 11/24/09 6:25 PM

        JoeJoe, re your comment about STP (you luv them), I suggest you rethink that idea.  Their debt service on 1.7 bilion is so high they’re fecked.  GIANT debt service requires them to charge more money per watt to break even, essentially eliminating them as a lo-cost competitor.  You can hug and kiss their technology all you want, but FSLR will be banking $, and getting stronger, expanding production & R&D while STP tries to keep ahead of their GIANT debt service.

  • JoeJoe 11/24/09 6:51 PM

    FSLR has many good years left in them but ultimately I don’t see how they can compete with crystal. Imagine poly trending into the twenties. Imagine efficiency trending into the twenties. I’m talking down the road of course but you get the picture.

    The reason why I ask Rooferguy about the average system size plateau has to do with efficiency as well. Let’s say the average available southern roof space is 1000 square feet. As the price of PV comes down people are buying larger systems. In the last 8 years the average size has about doubled from something like 2.6 kW to about 5.3 kW. I’ve heard the practical limit is about 10 kW for the average house… The only way to push that higher would be to use less favorable roof space, ground mount or up efficiency. So I’m thinking efficiency will have that going for it in the not-too-distant future. Make sense? I also don’t see the PV farm thing working out as well as some think. The economies of scale are great but there’s the T&D charges that work against you. You can also make higher profit margins in the residential/commercial sector because the end-user gets much more bang for the buck.

    Reply
  • rooferguy 11/24/09 10:14 PM

    Hi JoeJoe and Steve -

    The vast majority of systems use all available sunny roof space, so we are not seeing any change in system size as panel prices decline.

    By far and away the biggest wildcard relates to new technologies like plug and play AC panels.  On the one hand, since AC panels are more shade tolerant (a shadow won’t shut down the whole array), it is reasonable to expect that AC panel systems would lead to an increase in average system sizes since a few more panels can be installed on the roof.

    On the other hand, with AC panels it’s possible to install a starter system with one (or more likely a half a dozen) panels — and then add on later.  That would lead to a decrease in average system price — but vastly more systems installed and panels sold.

    Sounds like the rates in CA are ridiculously high — but they’re going up fast here on the east coast, too.  The fairest way to price electricity is to let the market decide.  And I believe that the lower costs for solar generated power will result in people reducing their purchases from utilities.  Since the utilities are smart (decoupling is BS), they are trying to make it as expensive and time consuming as possible to install solar.  Someday panels will be in stores like Home Depot — you just can’t tell the average shopper NOT to buy a solar panel and make their own cheap electricity.  The genie is out of the bottle and utilities will see real competition just like when the mainframe companies got clobbered by PCs.

    Reply
  • JoeJoe 11/24/09 11:54 PM

    Hmmm… That’s curious. How big is the average residential system in your experience? See page 16 for the data I was talking about. Notice the steadily up ticking trend in residential system sizes.

    http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/EMP/reports/lbnl-2674e.pdf

    The tier 5 rates in PG&E’s territory are about as high as they get. Unless of course you’re on a TOU schedule in which case you can pay up to 62 cents/kWh. I don’t understand what you mean by decoupling is BS… If we weren’t decoupled the utilities would have that much more power. ha! pun!

    I think the market should decide prices too but how? Conventional generators book transmission lines and schedule energy deliveries precisely. Homeowners can’t do this. It seems like the rates will have to be determined by long term contracts. This takes me back to questioning what a fair price would be? The situation is similar to pricing electricity from a run of river project so there’s plenty of precedent.

    Reply
  • JoeJoe 11/30/09 1:18 AM

    Rooferguy

    Hope you had an enjoyable Thanksgiving. Just wanted to ask you again, how big is the average residential system in your experience?

    Reply
.