Talk:Net metering/Archives/2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Rfassbind in topic First sentence of intro

Net Metering and Avoided Cost

This article confuses net metering with avoided cost in its assertion about New Jersey and Colorado. Net metering credits the qualifying facility with full retail price; whereas avoided-cost rates credit only the provider's cost of generation (typically 50-60% of the full retail price). 209.143.16.32 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Phil Caskey 209.143.16.32 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the article needs to be clarified. Net metering only uses one bidirectional meter which is read monthly (fortuitously most standard meters are bidirectionally accurate). Both New Jersey and Colorado use net metering, meaning you only pay for the difference between what you use and what you generate (your bill each month is kWh used minus kWh generated - the meter nor your electric company knows how much each are, they only know the running difference as a total), and both states allow a carry over kWh credit from month to month if it is negative, but each state resolves any residual difference annually in a different manner. New Jersey pays credits on the basis of "avoided cost", Colorado "at the average hourly incremental cost for that year" (Investor Owned Utilities), and "at a rate deemed appropriate by the utility" for Co-ops and Munis. Since this article was last updated more states have added net metering laws, and New Jersey and Colorado no longer have the best laws (New Mexico allows up to 80 MW, Arizona has no limit). It would be good to look for a source that has counted them up (it used to be 37 states plus DC). It is beyond the scope of WP editors to do so, even though all it entails is going to[1] and one by one going through every state plus DC. 199.125.109.37 (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What we can do, however is tabulate them. 199.125.109.37 (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The heading below called "Annual Compensation" is confusing. I'm guessing the original author meant the rate used to compensate the customer for net excess credits not rolled over. If that's the case, then the data entries don't all make sense, because a number of states don't do this, but instead rollover the credits indefinitely (as indicated in the monthly rollover field). Moreover, I believe some states allow customers to cash out excess credits more frequently than annually. My suggestion would be to change the "monthly rollover field" to "Excess Generation Banking Provisions" and the "Annual Compensation" field to "Rate paid for excess credits not rolled over." Some of the data entries might then need to be edited to be consistent with the new headings.Yambu (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I am a Marketing Specialist for Green Mountain Energy Company and came across this section on net metering. Based on Wikipedia’s verifiability policy, I’d like to propose an edit to the following statement: “Only available to customers of Austin Energy, CPS Energy, or Green Mountain Energy (Green Mountain Energy is not a utility but a retail electric provider; according to www.powertochoose.com, Green Mountain prices are twice the average retail price).[29]” The source referenced (29) does not, in any way, confirm “Green Mountain prices are twice the average retail price.” Until a valid source is provided concerning price, I would like to ask the Wiki community to consider removing this misleading statement.Lea512 (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

State Subscriber limit
(% of peak)
Power limit
Res/Com(kW)
Monthly
rollover
Annual
compensation
Alabama N/A N/A N/A N/A
Alaska N/A N/A N/A N/A
Arizona none none yes avoided cost
Arkansas none 25/300 yes lost
California 2.5 1,000 yes lost
Colorado none 2,000 yes incremental cost
Connecticut none 2,000 yes avoided cost
Delaware 1 25/2,000 (DPL) yes lost
District of Columbia none 1,000 yes retail rate
Florida none 2,000 yes avoided cost
Georgia 0.2 10/100 yes lost
Hawaii 1 or 3 50 or 100 yes lost
Idaho 0.1 25 yes lost or up to retail*
Illinois 1 40 yes lost
Indiana 0.1 10 yes retail rate
Iowa none 500 yes retail rate
Kansas N/A N/A N/A N/A
Kentucky 1 30 yes retail rate
Louisiana none 25/300 yes retail rate
Maine none 100 yes lost
Maryland 1500 MW 2,000 yes lost
Massachusetts 1 60/1,000 or 2,000 yes(?) varies
Michigan 0.5 20 wholesale cost (same)
Minnesota none 40 retail paid retail paid
Mississippi N/A N/A N/A N/A
Missouri 5 100 yes lost
Montana none 50 yes lost
Nebraska 1 25 yes paid
Nevada 1 1,000 yes retail rate
New Hampshire 1 100 yes retail rate
New Jersey none 2,000 yes avoided cost
New Mexico none 80,000 avoided cost avoided cost
New York 0.3 to 1 25/500 to 2,000 yes avoided cost to retail rate
North Carolina 0.2 20/100 TOU lost
North Dakota none 100 avoided cost avoided cost
Ohio 1 none generation rate refunded
Oklahoma none 100 varies varies
Oregon 0.5 to none 25/25 to 2,000 yes varies
Pennsylvania none 50/3,000 to 5,000 yes generation and transmission cost
Rhode Island 2 1,650 partial lost
South Carolina 0.2 20/100 TOU lost
South Dakota N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tennessee N/A N/A N/A N/A
Texas** 1 20 avoided cost avoided cost
Utah 0.1 to 20 25/2,000 avoided cost to yes lost
Vermont 2 250 yes lost
Virginia 1 10/500 yes varies
Washington 0.25 100 yes lost
West Virginia 0.1 25 yes retail rate
Wisconsin none 20 to 100 varies varies
Wyoming none 25 yes avoided cost

Note: N/A = Not Available. None = no limit. Lost = granted to utility. * = Depending on utility. Retail rate = rollover continues. Paid = paid to customer. TOU = Time Of Use. ** = Austin Energy

First sentence of intro

The first sentence of the intro reads as follows:

"Net metering is a service to an electric consumer under which electric energy generated by that electric consumer from an eligible on-site generating facility and delivered to the local distribution facilities may be used to offset electric energy provided by the electric utility to the electric consumer during the applicable billing period."

Am I the only one who thinks that this definition could be formulated in a much simpler way? Anyone capable of doing so? --Rfassbind (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)