The Reliability of Distributed Solar in Critical Peak Demand: A Capital Value Assessment[edit | edit source]
Burke, Kerry B. "The Reliability of Distributed Solar in Critical Peak Demand: A Capital Value Assessment." Renewable Energy 68 (August 2014): 103–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.01.042.
Generation is most valuable when demand is highest. As electricity can't yet be cheaply stored, generation and transmission infrastructure must be built to meet the highest expected demand, plus a margin of error.Reliably producing power at times of critical demand not only offsets the need to use expensive liquid fuels such as diesel or condensate, but also removes the need to build backup power stations and transmission infrastructure that would only be used for a small fraction of the year. Under the most extreme demand conditions, solar has reduced the peak demand seen by retailers and wholesale energy markets. This study compares the capital cost of critical peak availability from gas turbines to the capital cost of critical peak availability from distributed solar in the Australian National Electricity Market (NEM). When compared on this basis, 10e22% of the cost of installing the solar system can be attributed to the capital value of critical peak generation. Northwest and west facing PV is worth a further 3e6% of system installation costs when compared to generally north facing PV. Finally, southern states, with longer summer days and more sun-shine in the afternoon are found to benefit more from peak supply of solar PV
- Key Takeaways
- This paper aims to assess the value of distributed solar PV's availability in times of critical peak demand, rather than calculating an average value of energy.
- Importance of having reliable data
- Power output as a percentage of rated capacity calculated for every half hour over the last two summers
- Cost evaluation of solar consideration
- Gas turbine nameplate construction cost
- Temperature effects of generation: temperature lower efficiency of gas turbine in summer
- Losses: Transport and distribution
- Effective peak capacity costs
- This study makes no attempt to calculate the avoided costs of delayed transmission and distribution infrastructure upgrades.Such a calculation is not possible without substation level load data from distribution companies.
- This study makes no attempt to calculate the value of energy produced by distributed solar PV. The value of critical peak capacity is additional to the value of energy produced as calculated by regulatory bodies.
Distributed Energy Resources and Benefits to the Environment[edit | edit source]
Akorede, Mudathir Funsho, Hashim Hizam, and Edris Pouresmaeil. "Distributed Energy Resources and Benefits to the Environment." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14, no. 2 (February 1, 2010): 724–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.025.
The recently released report of the International Energy Outlook (IEO2009) projects an increase of 44% in the world energy demand from 2006 to 2030, and 77% rise in the net electricity generation worldwide in the same period. However, threatening in the said report is that 80% of the total generation in 2030 would be produced from fossil fuels. This global dependence on fossil fuels is dangerous to our environment in terms of their emissions unless specific policies and measures are put in place. Nevertheless, recent research reveals that a reduction in the emissions of these gases is possible with widespread adoption of distributed generation (DG) technologies that feed on renewable energy sources, in the generation of electric power. This paper gives a detailed overview of distributed energy resources technologies, and also discusses the devastating impacts of the conventional power plants feeding on fossil fuels to our environment. The study finally justifies how DG technologies could substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions when fully adopted; hence, reducing the public concerns over human health risks caused by the conventional method of electricity generation.
- Key Takeaways:
- It is generally anticipated that traditional fossil fuels would be phased out over time by renewable energy sources. The reason is majorly due to the global concerns over the amount of GHGs emitted to the atmosphere when these fuels are burnt for one purpose or another.
- Recent studies have revealed that wide-spread adoption of distributed generation (DG) technologies in power systems can play a key role in creating a clean, reliable energy with substantial environmental and other benefits
- Environmental advantages of Distributed Generation
- Promotion of higher efficiency
- Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions due to power generation
- Minimizes damage to health
- Space saving advantage
- Finding another energy sources such as distributed generation that feed on renewable energy sources would not only help meet the growing energy demand but also preserve our environment from the devastating effects of GHGs caused by the traditional method
The Climate and Air-Quality Benefits of Wind and Solar Power in the United States[edit | edit source]
Millstein, Dev, Ryan Wiser, Mark Bolinger, and Galen Barbose. "The Climate and Air-Quality Benefits of Wind and Solar Power in the United States." Nature Energy 2, no. 9 (September 2017): 17134. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.134.
Wind and solar energy reduce combustion-based electricity generation and provide air quality and greenhouse gas emission benefits. These benefits vary dramatically by region and over time. From 2007 –2015, solar and wind power deployment increased rapidly while regulatory changes and fossil fuel price changes led to steep cuts in overall power-sector emissions.Here we evaluate how wind and solar climate and air quality benefits evolved during this time period. We find cumulative wind and solar air quality benefits of 29.7 –112.8 billion US 2015$ mostly from 3,000 –12,700 avoided premature mortalities, and cumulative climate benefits of5.3 –106.8billion US 2015$. The ranges span results across a suite of air quality and health impact models and social cost of carbon estimates. We find that binding cap-and-trade pollutant markets may have reduced these cumulative benefits by up to 16%. In 2015, based on central estimates, combined marginal benefits equal 7.3¢/kWh (wind) and 4.0 ¢/kWh (solar).
- Key Takeaways:
- Air Emission Impact
- Valuation of Air Quality Benefits
- EASIUR, EPA RIA, and COBRA
- Valuation of GHG Emission Reductions
The environmental and public health benefits of achieving high penetrations of solar energy in the United States[edit | edit source]
Wiser, Ryan, Dev Millstein, Trieu Mai, Jordan Macknick, Alberta Carpenter, Stuart Cohen, Wesley Cole, Bethany Frew, and Garvin Heath. "The Environmental and Public Health Benefits of Achieving High Penetrations of Solar Energy in the United States." Energy 113 (October 15, 2016): 472–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.07.068.
We estimate the environmental and public health benefits that may be realized if solar energy cost reductions continue until solar power is competitive across the U.S. without subsidies. Specifically, we model, from 2015 to 2050, solar power–induced reductions to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, air pollutant emissions, and water usage. To find the incremental benefits of new solar deployment, we compare the difference between two scenarios, one where solar costs have fallen such that solar supplies 14% of the nation's electricity by 2030 and 27% by 2050, and a baseline scenario in which no solar is added after 2014. We monetize benefits, where credible methods exist to do so. We find that under these scenarios, solar power reduces GHG and air pollutants by ∼10%, from 2015 to 2050, providing a discounted present value of $56–$789 billion (central value of ∼$250 billion, equivalent to ∼2 ¢/kWh-solar) in climate benefits and $77–$298 billion (central value of $167 billion, or ∼1.4 ¢/kWh-solar) in air quality and public health benefits. The ranges reflect uncertainty within the literature about the marginal impact of emissions of GHG and air pollutants. Solar power is also found to reduce water withdrawals and consumption by 4% and 9%, respectively, including in many drought-prone states.
- Key Takeaways:
- GHG emissions valuation
- Social Cost of Carbon (SCC)
- SO2,NOx and primary PM2.5 emissions valuation - Peer reviewed methods
- Air Pollution Emission Experiments and Policy analysis model (AP2,formerly APEEP; described in Muller et al.)
- EPA's marginal benefit methodology developed for the CPP[31,33]
- Water usage valuation: not evaluated in this study
Air quality and health co-benefits of China's national emission trading system[edit | edit source]
Chang, Shiyan, Xi Yang, Haotian Zheng, Shuxiao Wang, and Xiliang Zhang. "Air Quality and Health Co-Benefits of China's National Emission Trading System." Applied Energy 261 (March 1, 2020): 114226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114226.
Quantification of the air quality and health co-benefits of climate policies can provide explicit near-term localized assessment of the benefits of efforts to mitigate climate change. In the study, the air quality and PM2.5 associated health co-benefits of China's national Emission Trading System to achieve the Nationally Determined Contribution is analyzed. The interdisciplinary integrated assessment model framework, named the Regional Emissions Air quality Climate Health Model, is applied. The results showed that substantial air quality improvement and health benefit will be achieved under the national Emission Trading System. But the cost and benefits varies according to the CO2 emission cap set. To peak CO2 emissions by 2025 will bring about more obvious improvement in air quality (ranging from 3% to 12% PM2.5 concentration reduction at provincial level compared with that to peak CO2 emission by 2030), more morbidities avoided from acute exposure and more mortalities avoided from acute exposure and chronic exposure. While the net health benefit to achieve peaking by 2025 is US$ 100 billion less than that to achieve peaking by 2030 due to greater GDP loss in 2030. The net benefit is subjected to the valuation of the health benefits. If a higher Value of a Statistical Life, US$ 1.92 million, is chosen, the net benefits to achieve peak CO2 emissions by 2025 can be equal to that to achieve peak CO2 emissions by 2030.
- Key Takeaways:
- Analysis of CO2, PM2.5 and health effects
Potential air quality benefits from increased solar photovoltaic electricity generation in the Eastern United States[edit | edit source]
Abel, David, Tracey Holloway, Monica Harkey, Arber Rrushaj, Greg Brinkman, Phillip Duran, Mark Janssen, and Paul Denholm. "Potential Air Quality Benefits from Increased Solar Photovoltaic Electricity Generation in the Eastern United States." Atmospheric Environment 175 (February 1, 2018): 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.11.049.
We evaluate how fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and precursor emissions could be reduced if 17% of electricity generation was replaced with solar photovoltaics (PV) in the Eastern United States. Electricity generation is simulated using Grid View, then used to scale electricity-sector emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) from an existing gridded inventory of air emissions. This approach offers a novel method to leverage advanced electricity simulations with state-of-the-art emissions inventories, without necessitating recalculation of emissions for each facility. The baseline and perturbed emissions are input to the Community Multiscale Air Quality Model (CMAQ version 4.7.1) for a full accounting of time- and space-varying air quality changes associated with the 17% PV scenario. These results offer a high-value opportunity to evaluate the reduced-form Avoided Emissions and generation Tool (AVERT), while using AVERT to test the sensitivity of results to changing base-years and levels of solar integration. We find that average NOX and SO2 emissions across the region decrease 20% and 15%, respectively. PM2.5 concentrations decreased on average 4.7% across the Eastern U.S., with nitrate (NO3−) PM2.5 decreasing 3.7% and sulfate (SO42−) PM2.5 decreasing 9.1%. In the five largest cities in the region, we find that the most polluted days show the most significant PM2.5 decrease under the 17% PV generation scenario, and that the greatest benefits are accrued to cities in or near the Ohio River Valley. We find summer health benefits from reduced PM2.5 exposure estimated as 1424 avoided premature deaths (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 284 deaths, 2 732 deaths) or a health savings of $13.1 billion (95% CI: $0.6 billion, $43.9 billion) These results highlight the potential for renewable energy as a tool for air quality managers to support current and future health-based air quality regulations.
- Key Takeaways:
- Solar PV environmental impact Analysis methods presented
- Element analyzed
- Air quality
- Health impacts
- Sensitivity testing
Measuring Renewable Energy Externalities: Evidence from Subjective Well-Being Data[edit | edit source]
Möllendorff, Charlotte von, and Heinz Welsch. "Measuring Renewable Energy Externalities: Evidence from Subjective Well-Being Data." Land Economics 93, no. 1 (February 1, 2017): 109–26. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.93.1.109.
Electricity from renewable sources avoids disadvantages of conventional power generation but often meets with local resistance. We use 324,763 observations on the subjective well-being of46,678 individuals in Germany, 1994–2012, for identifying and valuing the local externalities from solar,wind, and biomass plants in respondents' postcode district and adjacent postcode districts. We find significant wellbeing externalities of all three technologies that differ with regard to their temporal and spatial characteristics. The monetary equivalent of 1MW capacity expansion of wind power and biomass installations is estimated to be 0.35% and 1.25% of monthly per capita income, respectively.(JEL D62,Q42)
- Key Takeaways:
- Welsch and Biermann(2014) found in a multi-country study that a higher share of solar and wind power in a country's national electricity mix is associated with greater subjective well-being of its citizens.
- Renewables sometimes, meet with local resistance because of social and community acceptance
- This paper studies RE externalities from the point of view of local subjective well-being
- The paper found out that renewable power plants generate statistically and economically significant local externalities whose effects differ across the technologies considered, both qualitatively and quantitatively.
- The study used nationwide representative data
- No differentiation between rooftop solar and free-stand solar
- The monetary estimation of externalities depends on location (local income level)
- There should be a trade-off between the externalities of RE and fossil sources
Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Distributed Solar Generation in Virginia[edit | edit source]
Pitt, Damian, and Gilbert Michaud. "Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Distributed Solar Generation in Virginia," n.d., 70.
Distributed solar energy has recently become the subject of heated policy debate in Virginia and many other states. Proponents note that it provides a variety of environmental, public health, and economic development benefits for society. They also argue that it can help electric utilities save money on conventional generation fuels, avoid new generation capacity investments, and reduce the strain on existing transmission and distribution infrastructure. However,many electric utilities, including those in Virginia, argue that distributed solar energy creates costs for utilities that will then be passed on to ratepayers. For example, a dramatic increase in distributed solar energy could theoretically reduce utilities' revenue to the point that they cannot pay off existing investments in generation infrastructure, creating "stranded asset" costs. The utilities also contend that expanded solar deployment may not reduce the need for additional conventional generation capacity, and that it could cause technical problems for the transmission and distribution grids. This report seeks to provide a better understanding of the costs and benefits of solar energy in Virginia, including its impacts to utilities, ratepayers, and society at large. It does not produce a single figure for the net value of distributed solar generation (DSG). Instead, it discusses the variables that should be included when evaluating the costs and benefits of DSG, and recommends three alternative methods by which subsequent studies could calculate those costs and benefits. It also discusses how the costs and benefits of DSG could be influenced by future market, technology, or policy changes, but it does not offer any policy recommendations. Rather, its purpose is to provide an impartial analysis of the value of solar in order to better inform the policy debate around solar energy issues.
- Key Takeaways:
- Component of VOS in the case of Virginia
- Avoided energy
- Generation capacity
- Transmission Energy
- Distribution Energy
- Carbon emissions
- Other air pollutants
- Water impacts
- Economic development
- Fuel price volatility
- Reliability risk
- Market price response
- Land impacts
- Ancillary services
Assessing the Value of Distributed Solar Energy Generation[edit | edit source]
Pitt, Damian, and Gilbert Michaud. "Assessing the Value of Distributed Solar Energy Generation." Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports 2, no. 3 (2015): 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-015-0030-0.
Solar energy has recently become the subject of heated policy debate across the United States, particularly at the state level. Proponents note that it provides a variety of environmental, public health, and economic development benefits for society and argue that it can help support electric grid operations. Many electric utilities, however, contend that the growth of customer-owned, distributed solar energy systems will create costs that the utilities must pass on to ratepayers. This debate has led to a wide range of technical reports seeking to quantify the costs and benefits of solar energy to electric utilities, ratepayers, and society at large. We review these studies, discuss the different perspectives that they represent, and identify the key variables that have shaped this value-of-solar debate. We conclude by discussing future research opportunities that could help to maximize the benefits of solar energy use while minimizing its potential negative impacts.
- Key Takeaways:
- The paper states the reasons why solar valuation opponents are against the principle
- The paper reviews the current policy debate on distributed solar energy and the ongoing research efforts to identify the true value of solar(VOS) for electric utilities, their customers, and society at large
- Features involved in VOS calculation
- Avoided Energy Costs
- Generation Capacity
- Transmission and Distribution Grid Impacts
- Natural Gas Market Impacts
- Environmental Benefits
- Economic Development
- VOS debate is largely a matter of perspective, as the costs and benefits vary widely based
- the time frame considered
- assumed market penetration
- values incorporated
- The negative environmental impacts of conventional electricity generation are generally not captured by existing regulatory and market structures, and as such, they are often not addressed in official studies for electric utilities and public utility commissions
Can Distributed Generation Offer Substantial Benefits in a Northeastern American Context? A Case Study of Small-Scale Renewable Technologies Using a Life Cycle Methodology[edit | edit source]
Amor, Mourad Ben, Pascal Lesage, Pierre-Olivier Pineau, and Réjean Samson. "Can Distributed Generation Offer Substantial Benefits in a Northeastern American Context? A Case Study of Small-Scale Renewable Technologies Using a Life Cycle Methodology." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14, no. 9 (2010): 2885–2895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.08.001.
Renewable distributed electricity generation can play a significant role in meeting today's energy policy goals, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving energy security, while adding supply to meet increasing energy demand. However, the exact potential benefits are still a matter of debate. The objective of this study is to evaluate the life cycle implications (environmental, economic and energy) of distributed generation (DG) technologies. A complementary objective is to compare the life cycle implications of DG technologies with the centralized electricity production representing the Northeastern American context. Environmental and energy implications are modeled according to the recommendations in the ISO 14040 standard and this, using different indicators: Human Health; Ecosystem Quality; Climate Change; Resources and Non-Renewable Energy Payback Ratio. Distinctly, economic implications are modeled using conventional life cycle costing. DG technologies include two types of grid-connected photovoltaic panels (3 kWp mono-crystalline and poly-crystalline) and three types of micro-wind turbines (1, 10 and 30 kW) modeled for average, below average and above average climatic conditions in the province of Quebec (Canada). A sensitivity analysis was also performed using different scenarios of centralized energy systems based on average and marginal (short- and long-term) technology approaches. Results show the following. First, climatic conditions (i.e., geographic location) have a significant effect on the results for the environmental, economic and energy indicators. More specifically, it was shown that the 30 kW micro-wind turbine is the best technology for above average conditions, while 3 kWp poly-crystalline photovoltaic panels are preferable for below average conditions. Second, the assessed DG technologies do not show benefits in comparison to the centralized Quebec grid mix (average technology approach). On the other hand, the 30 kW micro-wind turbine shows a potential benefit as long as the Northeastern American electricity market is considered (i.e., oil and coal centralized technologies are affected for the short- and long-term marginal scenarios, respectively). Photovoltaic panels could also become more competitive if the acquisition cost decreased. In conclusion, DG utilization will represent an improvement over centralized electricity production in a Northeastern American context, with respect to the environmental, energy and economic indicators assessed, and under the appropriate conditions discussed (i.e., geographical locations and affected centralized electricity production scenarios).
- Key Takeaways:
- Comparison of life cycle impact of renewables to fossils
- Studies included geographical dependencies
- The externalities value in VOS depends on geographical location
Climate, Air Quality and Human Health Benefits of Various Solar Photovoltaic Deployment Scenarios in China in 2030[edit | edit source]
Yang, Junnan, Xiaoyuan Li, Wei Peng, Fabian Wagner, and Denise L. Mauzerall. "Climate, Air Quality and Human Health Benefits of Various Solar Photovoltaic Deployment Scenarios in China in 2030." Environmental Research Letters 13, no. 6 (2018): 10. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabe99.
Solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity generation can greatly reduce both air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuel electricity generation. The Chinese government plans to greatly scale up solar PV installation between now and 2030. However, different PV development pathways will influence the range of air quality and climate benefits. Benefits depend on how much electricity generated from PV is integrated into power grids and the type of power plant displaced. Using a coal-intensive power sector projection as the base case, we estimate the climate, air quality, and related human health benefits of various 2030 PV deployment scenarios. We use the 2030 government goal of 400 GW installed capacity but vary the location of PV installation and the extent of inter-provincial PV electricity transmission. We find that deploying distributed PV in the east with inter-provincial transmission maximizes potential CO2 reductions and air quality-related health benefits (4.2% and 1.2% decrease in national total CO2 emissions and air pollution-related premature deaths compared to the base case, respectively). Deployment in the east with inter-provincial transmission results in the largest benefits because it maximizes displacement of the dirtiest coal-fired power plants and minimizes PV curtailment, which is more likely to occur without inter-provincial transmission. We further find that the maximum co-benefits achieved with deploying PV in the east and enabling inter-provincial transmission are robust under various maximum PV penetration levels in both provincial and regional grids. We find large potential benefits of policies that encourage distributed PV deployment and facilitate inter-provincial PV electricity transmission in China.
- Key Takeaways:
- This paper conducts an integrated assessment that quantifies and compares the climate, air quality, and related human health benefits of various solar PV deployment and utilization scenarios for 2030 China
- The study demonstrates not only the increased air quality and climate co-benefits of installing distributed PV in the east, but also the fact that the air quality and climate co-benefits would likely be reduced due to PV curtailment in the northwest
- Environmental benefits of solar PV depends on the location
Solar Regime and LVOE of PV Embedded Generation Systems in Nigeria[edit | edit source]
Ohijeagbon, O. D., and Oluseyi O. Ajayi. "Solar Regime and LVOE of PV Embedded Generation Systems in Nigeria." Renewable Energy 78 (2015): 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.01.014.
The study assessed the potential and economic viability of solar PV standalone systems for embedded generation, taking into account its benefits to small off-grid rural communities in forty meteorological sites in Nigeria. A specific electric load profile was developed to suite the communities consisting 200 homes, a school and community health centre. Data (daily mean relative humidity, maximum and minimum temperatures, and daily global solar radiation for 24 years spanning 1987-2010) obtained from the Nigeria Meteorological Agency were used. It focused on the assessment of design that will optimally meet daily load demand for the rural communities with an LOLP of 0.01. The HOMER® software optimizing tool was engaged for the feasibility study and design. A 15 MW PV distributed generation system was utilized to economically compare the different sites in terms of life cycle cost as well as levelised cost of producing energy. A profit for potential investors in the range of $ 0.01/kWh to $ 0.17/kWh was discovered for 29 of the 40 available meteorological sites, while the remaining sites were not profitable with the present tariff regime in Nigeria.
- Key Takeaways:
- Calculation of LCOE for Solar in Nigeria
Regional Variations in the Health, Environmental, and Climate Benefits of Wind and Solar Generation[edit | edit source]
Siler-Evans, Kyle, Inês Lima Azevedo, M. Granger Morgan, and Jay Apt. "Regional Variations in the Health, Environmental, and Climate Benefits of Wind and Solar Generation." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, no. 29 (2013): 11768–11773. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1221978110.
When wind or solar energy displace conventional generation, the reduction in emissions varies dramatically across the United States. Although the Southwest has the greatest solar resource, a solar panel in New Jersey displaces significantly more sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter than a panel in Arizona, resulting in 15 times more health and environmental benefits. A wind turbine in West Virginia displaces twice as much carbon dioxide as the same turbine in California. Depending on location, we estimate that the combined health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind or solar range from $10/MWh to $100/MWh, and the sites with the highest energy output do not yield the greatest social benefits in many cases. We estimate that the social benefits from existing wind farms are roughly 60% higher than the cost of the Production Tax Credit, an important federal subsidy for wind energy. However, that same investment could achieve greater health, environmental, and climate benefits if it were differentiated by region.
- Key Takeaways:
- The paper estimates the monetized social benefits resulting from emissions reductions, and we explicitly consider differences in energy production, climate benefits from displaced CO2emissions, and health and environmental benefits from displaced SO2, NOx, and PM2.5
- Damages from CO2 emissions are monetized using a social cost of $20 per ton of CO2.
- Location-specific damages from SO2, NOx, and PM2.5 emissions are adopted from the Air Pollution Emission Experiments and Policy(APEEP) analysis model, which values mortality from air pollution at $6 million per life lost (often termed the value of a statistical life)
Designing Compensation for Distributed Solar Generation:Is Net Metering Ever Optimal[edit | edit source]
Brown, David P., and David E. M. Sappington. "Designing Compensation for Distributed Solar Generation:Is Net Metering Ever Optimal?" The Energy Journal 38, no. 3 (July 1, 2017). https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.38.3.dbro.
Electricity customers who install solar panels often are paid the prevailing retail price for the electricity they generate. We demonstrate that this rate of compensation typically is not optimal. A payment for distributed generation (w) that is below the retail price of electricity (r) often will induce the welfare-maximizing level of distributed generation (DG) when the fixed costs of centralized electricity production and the network management costs of accommodating intermittent solar DG are large, and when centralized generation and DG produce similar(pollution) externalities. w can optimally exceed r under alternative conditions.The optimal DG compensation policy varies considerably as industry conditions change. Furthermore, a requirement to equate w and r can reduce aggregate welfare substantially and can generate pronounced distributional effects.
- Key Takeaways:
- Proposed Equation for VOS components calculation
Distributed Generation Valuation and Compensation[edit | edit source]
Orrell, Alice C., Juliet S. Homer, and Yingying Tang. "Distributed Generation Valuation and Compensation," February 14, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2172/1561273.
This white paper can help guide a state as it considers issues associated with distributed generation valuation and compensation. States may address a common set of questions and issues in the valuation process, but differences in market expectations, policy priorities, and regulations result in different responses. Key issues include the following:
- Context is important. Valuations and compensation strategies will vary based on goals and objectives they are being designed to achieve. Goals and objectives should be made clear up front and will drive the perspective used in performing valuations and how outcomes are applied.
- An important early step in performing valuations is to survey the different value components and their associated costs and benefits that could be used as the valuation building blocks. Examples of valuation building blocks include avoided costs associated with fuel, generation capacity, transmission capacity, reserve capacity, distribution capacity, fixed and variable operations, and maintenance and environmental compliance and/or impacts.
- Utilities and stakeholders can have different interpretations of how value elements should be calculated. In some states, the objective of standardized calculators and methods is to reduce ambiguity and inconsistencies in how valuations are performed.
- Certain value elements are difficult or impossible to quantify and most efforts to establish workable value of solar or value of distributed energy resource tariffs are emerging and nascent. Assessing locational and temporal value of distributed generation and applying that in compensation schemes is a new and emerging field of study being explored by a handful of research organizations and advanced states and utilities.
- The most advanced states, such as California, are using demonstration projects to test valuation and compensation methodologies or are applying valuation and compensation strategies to a subset of customer projects, such as for community solar projects (e.g., Oregon and New York), before rolling out programs to the full customer base.
- A variety of states are moving away from full net metering, in many cases substituting avoided cost rates (sometimes with an adder) in lieu of full retail rate compensation, instead of pursuing valuation of distributed energy resource approaches. For example, in Indiana a 25% adder is applied to average wholesale electricity prices and in Mississippi a 2.5 cents/kWh adder is applied to avoided cost rates. These adders appear to have been established through policy directives rather than comprehensive cost of service valuations.
- Key Takeaways:
- In a value of distributed generation calculation, all values, both positive (i.e., benefits) and negative (i.e., costs), are considered to achieve a net value. This allows for a well-designed compensation mechanism to be achieved that mitigates negative effects, reinforces positive effects, and supports the full and fair value of distributed generation to all stakeholders (NREL 2017)
- Different components of VOS from different states has been described.
Distributed Solar Photovoltaic Cost-Benefit Framework Study: Considerations and Resources for Oklahoma[edit | edit source]
Holm, Alison, Jeffrey J Cook, Alexandra Y Aznar, Jason W Coughlin, and Benjamin Mow. "Distributed Solar Photovoltaic Cost-Benefit Framework Study: Considerations and Resources for Oklahoma," September 5, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2172/1561512.
- Key Takeaways:
- VOS Components mentioned in the report
- Energy production
- Generation capacity
- Transmission & distribution capacity deferrals
- Transmission & distribution line losses
- Environmental costs and benefits
- Natural gas (or other fuel) price hedge
- Disaster recovery (also called security/resiliency)
- Reactive power control
- Voltage control
- Solar integration costs
- Credit for local manufacturing & assembly
- Market price reduction
- High-value location credit for PV system
- Economic development value
- Different components cited above are applied according to the state but the overarching points are
- T&D loss savings
- Generator capacity
- T&D capacity
- Environmental costs and benefits (e.g., emissions reductions)
- Ancillary services
- Other (e.g., fuel price hedging, market-price suppression).
Distributed Rate Design: A Review of Early Approaches and Practical Considerations for Value of Solar Tariffs[edit | edit source]
O'Shaughnessy, Eric, and Kristen Ardani. "Distributed Rate Design: A Review of Early Approaches and Practical Considerations for Value of Solar Tariffs." The Electricity Journal 33, no. 3 (April 2020): 106713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2020.106713.
Value of solar tariffs are an emerging rate design for grid-tied distributed solar. Value of solar rate design reflects tradeoffs between theoretical and practical considerations. We review two early U.S. value of solar tariff case studies to identify these key considerations. The cases illustrate how rate makers have designed practical rates that reasonably approximate the value of solar given context-specific objectives and constraints. We describe four practical considerations for future value of solar tariff design.
Assessing the Value of Distributed Solar[edit | edit source]
Harari, Sara, and Nate Kaufman. "Assessing the Value of Distributed Solar." Yale Center for Business and the Environment, 2017, 21.
- Key Takeaways:
- Component included in Value of Solar with sources
- Avoided Energy Costs
- Avoided capital and capacity investment in generation infrastructure
- Avoided capital and capacity investment in T&D infrastructure
- Avoided O&M costs
- Increased grid resiliency and reliability
- Avoided losses and other locational benefits
- Environmental benefits
- Job creation
U.S. Climate Change Law: A Decade of Flux and an Uncertain Future[edit | edit source]
Carlarne, Cinnamon Piñon. "U.S. Climate Change Law: A Decade of Flux and an Uncertain Future." SSRN Electronic Journal, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3493812.
Climate change is a defining feature of contemporary existence. It also poses fundamental challenges to the rule of law. As the scale of the climate crises swells, so too do efforts to develop innovative strategies for addressing climate change at the local, state, and national levels. This innovation is driven by necessity and is fueled by creative and determined actors from across the public and private sectors. But the pace of legal innovation is uneven, and the consistency of political leadership is erratic. Nowhere is this more evident than at the federal level in the United States, where presidential politics vividly demonstrate the degree to which we still lack a collective national vision for how to respond to climate change.
In this Article, I argue that as important as presidential leadership is, lawmakers and scholars should not focus myopically on the vagaries of presidential climate politics and federal climate law. Between 2009 and2019, the United States elected the most climate-friendly president in U.S. history and then replaced him with the most climate-skeptical president in U.S. history. Within this dramatic decade, notwithstanding the fluxes and flows in legal development at the federal level, there has been a steady stream of legal innovation by subnational and non-state actors. The interactions between national, subnational, and non-state climate governance efforts are one of the most under-explored dimensions of domestic climate change law. This Article addresses this gap by examining key developments in U.S. climate change law and policy over the period 2009 to 2019, to reveal how subnational and non-state initiatives complement and constrain the development of national climate change law and policy over time.
- Key Takeaways:
- Removal of federal support to Climate Action Plan, Climate Action Plan Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions. The order also directs immediate review of the CPP; disbands the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases and withdraws its reports on the social cost of carbon declaring them "no longer representative of governmental policy
- The EPA's estimates suggest that increases in particulate matter and ozone pollution could lead to thousands of premature deaths and increases in pollution-related illness, as compared to the baseline under the CPP.
- Key Takeaways:
- Key Takeaways: