cooperative residential pv guide

Cooperative Residential PV Guidep r o j e c t 0 9 - 0 6

C o p y r i g h t © 2 0 0 9 b y N a t i o n a l R u r a l E l e c t r i c C o o p e r a t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n . O c t o b e r 2 0 0 9


E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y 2 o f 7 2

Contents

ContentsExecutive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PV Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

PV System Costs & Financing Options . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Frequently Asked Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

PV System Manufacturers and Installers . . . . . . . . . . 59

Consumer Handout Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Resources and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Legal Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72


Executive Summary


Executive SummaryAs interest in renewable energy grows, cooperatives may be approached by residential member-consumers interested in generating electricity with small-scale systems, including photovoltaics (PV).

This guide to PV systems can help cooperative personnel answer questions and provide information to member-consumers who request it. The guide—intended for member services, engineering, and operations personnel—reviews the various requirements and reasons for cooperative support of member-consumers interested in installing PV systems, and what cooperatives can do to prepare them.

The guide also includes sections on PV technology basics, the reasons why member-consumers may be interested in PV systems, what member-consumers expect from you, and guidance on the packet of information that you should prepare for them.

The guide also features case studies, which examine the experience of some cooperatives and their members who have installed PV systems. The eight case studies—in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico, Texas, and Vermont—include lessons learned from the perspectives of cooperatives and their members. In addition, this guide includes a section on PV system manufacturers and installers, a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs)—with answers, and a shor t consumer handout that includes the 10 steps to a PV system and questions to ask installers.

Cooperatives’ Obligations

There are several reasons for cooperatives to support member-consumers who want to install a PV system.

1. Cooperatives must meet legal requirements. Section 210 of the federal Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) requires utilities to interconnect with qualifying facilities (QFs), sell power to QFs, and purchase QF power at avoided cost. The act also requires utilities to adopt a standard rate at which they will purchase excess power from QFs with a design capacity of 100 kW or less.

In 2005, Title I of PURPA was updated to require states and larger unregulated utilities to consider adopting federal standards respecting interconnection and net metering of these systems. In some states, electric co-ops are included in net metering and interconnection requirements.

Moreover, in July 2009, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) issued new regulations requiring all RUS borrowers to adopt distributed generation interconnection procedures. Each electric program distribution borrower is now responsible for establishing and maintaining a written standard policy



Executive Summary

relating to the Interconnection of Distributed Resources (IDR) having an installed capacity of not more than 10 megavolt amperes (MVA) at the point of common coupling. RUS Borrowers must have an IDR policy board approved and in effect no later than July 8, 2011, or when a new loan application is submitted to RUS, whichever comes first.

The technical requirements for interconnected Distributed Resource installations include compliance with IEEE Interconnection Standards 1547 and 1547.1. In addition, all installations must include a lockable disconnect and a visible open readily accessible to and operable by authorized personnel at all times. The Distributed Resources facility must be accessible during normal business hours and all emergency situations.

In addition, there are several other responsible par ty obligations that must be established. The NRECA Distributed Generation Interconnection Toolkit, available at https://www.cooperative.com/general/resources/DistributedGeneration/DistributedGeneration.htm, already includes guidance for most of the provisions of this new RUS rule.

2. Self-governance is an important issue for cooperatives. Each cooperative should be able to make decisions about how it will address renewables in its own system. Cooperatives that take a positive approach toward consumers interested in self-generation have found that their effor ts can keep members happy, attract positive press coverage, and avoid lawsuits and new government mandates. Other cooperatives have found that failure to work productively with a member-consumer can prompt that person to complain to state and federal legislators and regulators, which could result in negative publicity for the cooperative, as well as new government mandates.

3. Member-consumer satisfaction is important to cooperatives. If one of your member-consumers wants to install a PV system, it is easy to be helpful—this is consistent with the cooperative’s obligation to provide safe and affordable electricity service to other member-consumers. With the help of this guide, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) resources, and some local effor t, a cooperative can prepare itself to assist member-consumers by providing information relevant to a PV system, such as PV basics, interconnection requirements, written agreements, rates, and relevant costs. This is an oppor tunity to work with member-consumers while explaining that the cooperative must protect the safety of all member-consumers and cooperative employees, maintain the integrity and reliability of the grid, and establish mechanisms to ensure cost fairness for all.

https://www.cooperative.com/general/resources/DistributedGeneration/DistributedGeneration.htm

https://www.cooperative.com/general/resources/DistributedGeneration/DistributedGeneration.htm



Executive Summary

How to Use this Guide

Over the next few years, many cooperatives are likely to receive inquiries from consumers interested in generating their own power with PV systems. Those consumers will approach cooperatives with their own motivations for pursuing PV and their own expectations about what the cooperative can and should do to help them. Many consumers will be skeptical of the cooperative.

This guide will help prepare cooperative personnel to work with those consumers. In the spirit of “forewarned is forearmed,” it discusses some of the most common reasons consumers choose to invest in a PV system and the expectations many of them have as they begin to look at the investment. This information should help cooperative staff address consumers’ concerns and increase their confidence in their co-op’s ability to address such questions.

The guide also provides some basic information on PV systems and the interconnection process, both to give cooperative staff the background they need to understand the impact that PV will have on the cooperative and to allow them to answer the most basic questions they may receive from consumers.

Finally, the guide is intended to help cooperative staff develop and assemble the documents needed to help member-consumers interested in PV. If a cooperative waits to develop interconnection contracts and procedures until a consumer approaches with a proposal, it may be too late to ensure that the first interconnection goes well. This document will help to guide the cooperative personnel responsible for each aspect of connecting a PV system to the grid—including the member-consumer’s application, interconnection process, rates and fees, and written contract. If the directions are followed, the cooperative will be ready when a member-consumer asks about PV or looks it up on the cooperative’s Web site; the cooperative will have everything it needs to proceed with this renewable energy technology.


S e c t i o n 1 : P V B a s i c s 6 o f 7 2

PV BasicsS E C T I O N 1

PV BasicsThe total installed capacity of residential solar electric, or photovoltaic (PV), systems in the United States in 2008 was an estimated 76.4 MW (dc), according to the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC). Residential systems represent only a fraction of the nearly 300 MW of all grid-tied PV installed that year. Although commercial systems still dominate the PV market, residential applications have grown significantly in the past three years—from 37.7 MW of installed capacity in 2006 to 57.6 MW in 2007. There are several reasons for this increase, according to IREC. One driver was a tax credit for residential installations that took effect in 2006. Other factors include state incentives, rising electricity prices, and renewable por tfolio standards with specific solar requirements.

Residential PV systems—most of which range in size from 500 watts to 10 kilowatts (kW)—accounted for just over one-quar ter of total U.S. PV installations in 2008. Residential systems account for slightly more than one-quar ter of all grid-connected PV installations by capacity.

U.S. PV cell manufacturing output grew by an estimated 53% between 2007 and 2008, while manufacturing capacity rose by an estimated 65%, according to Greentech Media Research/Prometheus Institute.

Why Member-Consumers Are Interested in PV Systems

Understanding the reasons for member interest in PV generation may be helpful to cooperatives. When asked why they installed a PV system, cooperative members tend to give three reasons, according to a small sampling of member-consumers in seven states. In addition to the production of green power, they cite energy independence and reduced utility bills.

E N V I R O N M E N TA L C O N S I D E R AT I O N S

In the 2003 Home Power survey, 18% of readers said they suppor ted small-scale renewable energy because of its positive environmental impact. In the 2006 survey, 19% said they were interested in renewable energy because it would minimize their impact on the environment. Some environmentally conscious consumers will choose to invest in a PV system even when it does not save them money.




R E D U C E D U T I L I T Y B I L L S

Of respondents to the 2006 Home Power reader survey, 14% said they supported small-scale renewable energy as a means of reducing their utility costs. Properly sited and installed, the right PV system potentially could reduce a consumer’s utility bill by half or more, depending on utility-offered, state, and federal financial incentives for PV; energy-use patterns; and utility policies for purchasing excess power. Experts caution, however, that a PV system should not be seen as a moneymaker in today’s utility-cost environment. Consumer expectations about the economic value of PV investments often outstrip reality. Whether a PV system actually will save a consumer money in the long term will depend on a range of factors, discussed in greater detail later in this guide. (See how to calculate return on investment in Section 6, under “Ten Steps to a PV System” in the Consumer Handout Packet.)

OT H E R R E A S O N S

In the 2006 survey, 17% said they were interested in experimenting with the technology. Many homeowners are enamored by new technology and are even more interested in being on the cutting edge than in saving money.

S E PA S U RV E Y

The Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA) conducted a survey of PV installations in six states—California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin—between late 2007 and early 2008. Of those installations, 90% were residential. Nearly all of the installations were less than 10 kW in size, with 45% ranging from 2 kW to 4 kW. This survey is not yet publicly available.

Environmental concerns were cited by 24% of respondents as the reason for installing a PV system, while 20% mentioned reduced dependence on foreign oil, and 19% said they wanted to produce their own electricity. Other reasons included the desire to reduce current electricity bills and concern about the future price.

What Your Member-Consumers Want from You

Experience to date indicates that some member-consumers interested in installing a PV system will want their cooperative to provide them with basic information on these systems. Some cooperatives will provide an information packet. Others will refer consumers to outside organizations that provide information on PV systems, such as the state renewable energy organization or energy office. The DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Web site provides contact information for




state energy offices, available at www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/seo_contacts.cfm. Regional organizations, such as the Midwest Renewable Energy Association (MREA) (www.the-mrea.org) also might be able to help, as well as regional/state chapters of the Solar Energy Industries Association (www.seia.org/cs/about_seia/state_chapters.)

Both the Consumer’s Guide to Solar Electricity for the Home, issued by DOE’s EERE (www.nrel.gov/learning/pdfs/43844.pdf), and EERE’s Web site (www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/photovoltaics.html) provide information on PV systems.

This guide offers a draft of FAQs that can be included in the information packets many cooperatives prepare for member-consumers. Answers to some of the questions member-consumers most often ask are included in the draft consumer handout section at the end of this guide. (This information was gathered from the cooperatives profiled in the case studies section.) The FAQs (Section 4)—together with the Ten Steps to a PV System (Section 6)—can help member-consumers to determine whether a PV system is right for them.

Member-consumers may have unrealistic expectations or misperceptions of the cooperative’s role. They may expect interconnection to be cheap and easy, that there will be no change in their rates, and that they will be credited at the retail rate for any excess electricity sent to the grid. Cooperatives will want to be prepared to address those expectations in a productive manner, explaining cooperative policies and how those policies are designed to preserve the safety, reliability, and affordability of electric service for all of the cooperatives’ consumers.

Current Technologies

PV modules. Two PV module technologies—crystalline and thin-film—are commercially available in the U.S. residential market. Crystalline panels, a first-generation technology, have been in use for decades, while thin-film systems, a second-generation technology, are relatively new.

Conventional PV systems—which use single- or multi-crystalline (also called polycrystalline) silicon as the semiconductor material—dominate the U.S. market and account for nearly all residential installations. Panels (also called modules) are made of solar cells, generally are aluminum framed, and are covered with a tempered glazing that resists damage from hail or other damaging conditions.

Thin-film PV modules can be made of several semiconductor materials—amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride and copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS). Amorphous silicon accounts for roughly half of the thin-film market.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/seo_contacts.cfm

http://www.the-mrea.org

http://www.seia.org/cs/about_seia/state_chapters

http://www.nrel.gov/learning/pdfs/43844.pdf


http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/photovoltaics.html




Crystalline and thin-film modules differ in their conversion efficiency. The conversion efficiencies of single- and multi-crystalline modules typically range between 14% and 20%, with multi-crystalline silicon generally considered to be less efficient than single. The conversion efficiencies of thin-film modules range from 6% to 12%. Thin-film products require roughly twice as much space as crystalline modules to produce the same amount of electricity.

Crystalline and thin-film modules also differ in terms of the impact of cell temperature on electricity production. While both types of modules produce less electricity as the solar cell temperature rises, thin-film modules are less affected by higher temperatures. As a result, thin-film modules may be a better option in warmer climates, if sufficient roof space is available. In addition, some thin-film modules are more tolerant of shade and perform better in low- or diffused-light conditions than crystalline modules.

PV inverters. Most PV systems include an inver ter, which conver ts the direct current (DC) output into alternating current (AC) to synchronize it with the co-op’s 60 her tz AC system. Significant progress has been made by inver ter manufacturers and the utility industry to make these systems safe and reliable for interconnection to the grid.

To date, inver ters are the components of a distributed generation system that have proven the most prone to failure. Depending on the cause, the warranty may or may not cover replacement of the inver ter. Damage not covered by the warranty may be covered by the homeowner’s insurance policy, including the cost of labor. Homeowners should check with their insurance provider.

Information on PV inver ters approved by the California Energy Commission is available at www.gosolarcalifornia.org/equipment/inverter.php and at www.consumerenergycenter.org/erprebate/documents/2005_tax_credit/2006-03-02_APPR_INVERT_LIST.PDF.

Information on PV inver ters approved by the State of New York is available at www.dps.state.ny.us/08E1018/SIRDevices.pdf.

Advances and Challenges

PV modules. Many manufacturers are focused on reducing the cost of producing PV modules rather than increasing the efficiency of solar cells.

Improvements in manufacturing processes have led, or are expected to lead, to a drop in manufacturing costs. The introduction of a new wire saw in the spring of 2009 is one example. The silicon wafer is

http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/equipment/inverter.php

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/erprebate/documents/2005_tax_credit/2006-03-02_APPR_INVERT_LIST.PDF


http://www.dps.state.ny.us/08E1018/SIRDevices.pdf


S e c t i o n 1 : P V B a s i c s 1 0 o f 7 2


the most expensive component of crystalline silicon module production, so companies have sought to produce thinner wafers without breakage. The new saw is expected to produce ultra-thin wafers, reducing the amount of silicon used per wafer and driving down manufacturing costs by an estimated $0.18/watt. Also, increased demand for silicon has, and will likely continue, to boost the number of players in the market, thereby increasing supply.

For thin-film companies, the use of proprietary manufacturing processes is reducing costs. First Solar, for instance, announced in early 2009 that it had broken the $1/watt barrier, producing thin-film modules for $0.98/watt. The company has revealed few details about its manufacturing techniques, but repor tedly achieved the cost breakthrough by the use of a semiconductor that is one-hundredth the thickness of a silicon wafer, the use of a glass substrate that enables the production of large panels, and a production process that takes one-tenth of the time required to produce a silicon equivalent. An automated production line also helps to reduce costs.

However, one of the challenges faced by makers of thin-film modules is to find ways of making the cells less sensitive to moisture, which can affect their performance. BioSolar, which has developed a water-resistant backsheet for crystalline silicon solar cells, announced in April 2009 that it plans to produce the same backsheet for cadmium telluride and CIGS thin-film modules. Module encapsulation is a more critical factor in making modules water resistant, and much work continues in this area.

Some industry exper ts and researchers think that there will be many oppor tunities to squeeze costs and improve efficiency as manufacturers move to large-volume production of PV modules. They expect improvements to be incremental.

The solar industry is concentrating on ways to reduce production costs, and companies are looking for gains in efficiency and cheaper production methods for both crystalline and thin-film solar cells. For example, researchers at two European institutions have developed a technique that adds an ultra-thin aluminum oxide layer to the front of a crystalline silicon solar cell. The technique boosted cell efficiency to 23.2% from the previous high of 21.9%.

In an effor t to bring the efficiency of thin-film solar cells closer to that of crystalline silicon cells, DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), has achieved higher efficiencies for thin-film solar cells. NREL recorded an efficiency of 16.5% for cadmium telluride solar cells and 19.9% for cells based on CIGS. By comparison, NREL achieved a record efficiency of 13% for amorphous silicon thin-film solar cells.




Researchers also are exploring ways of reducing costs by developing cheaper methods of obtaining sufficiently pure silicon and by reducing the amount of silicon used in solar cells.

It’s impor tant to distinguish between laboratory and commercial efficiency achievements, says Mike Taylor, director of research and education at the Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA). While the efficiency of a solar cell may reach 25% in a lab, it is much more difficult to standardize conditions for the production of a million efficient cells on a manufacturing line.

PV inverters. Some of the inver ter design and manufacturing challenges identified by NREL are:

• a lack of good quality-control processes

• a lack of investment in sophisticated testing and manufacturing equipment

• the purchase of components in small quantities

• the need for improved efficiency

• limited experimentation with alternative inverter topologies

• capacitors—those available on the market are not well-suited to PV inver ter applications

• a lack of sophistication in inver ter design

To address the additional challenge of poor circuit integration, NREL suggests the need for R&D to integrate functions within imbedded circuits to reduce the number of interconnections. Noting that thermal management is a major reliability issue for inver ters, NREL points to the need for better thermal modeling tools to allow manufacturers to research innovative thermal management strategies. NREL notes that modular construction of inver ters would reduce costs by standardizing internal functional elements. To cope with the limited life of capacitors, NREL suggests that—if cost effective—inver ters be designed so that capacitors may be replaced easily. Extended warranties of up to 15 years can be purchased from the manufacturer to minimize the risk of inver ter failure.

The NREL report is available at www.nrel.gov/pv/pdfs/38771.pdf.

New and Emerging Technology Advances

Two technologies—concentrator solar and CIGS—are in the early stages of commercialization, but neither is expected to have any application in the residential PV market in the near term.

Any new PV technology will make a splash in the media, says SEPA’s Taylor. He adds, however, that no one should underestimate the amount of time it takes to get a technology up and running on a large

http://www.nrel.gov/pv/pdfs/38771.pdf




enough scale to matter. In addition, the residential sector is the last to see the benefits of any new PV technology, says Taylor.

Cer tification and Performance Standards

Several organizations—including the International Electrotechnical Commission, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, ASTM International, and Underwriters Laboratories (UL)—publish standards for PV products.

The Solar America Board for Codes and Standards (Solar ABCs) promotes and suppor ts the development, implementation, and dissemination of PV standards. The Board provides three technical services:

•Generates consensus on “best practices” materials and disseminates these materials to utilities and state and other regulatory agencies

•Answers code-related questions

•Provides feedback on important related issues to DOE and other government agencies

Solar ABCs mainly covers standards on PV modules and balance-of-system components for stand-alone and grid-connected systems. These standards primarily address PV product performance, reliability and safety. Details are available at www.solarabcs.org/.

DOE’s NREL serves as an independent facility for verifying device performance for the entire PV community. NREL tests the performance of commercial, developmental, and research PV devices. It measures the performance of PV cells and modules under Standard Test Conditions (STC). These conditions include a reference temperature of 25°C (77°F) and irradiance of 1,000 watts/m2 (1,000 W/10.7 ft2). To determine performance, NREL conducts two general categories of measurements: spectral responsivity and current versus voltage. STC provide a basis for comparing the performance of different PV systems.

PV modules and inver ters should be UL-listed.

Interconnection

Member-consumers may think that interconnecting a PV system to the grid can be accomplished easily and cheaply. In most cases, they will be right. For example, it is generally possible to expedite interconnection of a properly installed 10 kW UL-listed PV package without battery backup where the system is installed on a stable feeder. In some cases, however, the process may be significantly

http://www.solarabcs.org/




more complicated. Any generator on the system can affect the safety and reliability of the distribution system and the quality of power received by neighboring consumers. The cooperative’s technical interconnection rules are designed to address such effects on safety, reliability, and power quality.

Interconnection also will entail costs for the consumer. In rare cases, where consumers are installing their generation on a weak feeder or one with a high penetration of other distributed generation, consumers may be responsible for upgrades to the distribution system. Such upgrades may be required to address reversed power flows or increased short-circuit voltage. The consumer also might need to pay for cooperative staff time and the resources required to process the interconnection application and inspect the installation. However, small residential systems will not require such upgrades unless they are installed on a mass or community scale.

Finally, depending on the choices made by the local system, the consumer also may be required to carry additional liability insurance to protect the cooperative in the event that equipment malfunction causes harm to life or proper ty.

In some cases, the process, fees, and contracts for interconnection will be mandated by state law or regulation. Some states have developed interconnection standards and a few have pre-cer tified models of distributed generation (DG) units for interconnection. Packaged systems that have been pre-cer tified facilitate interconnection. The interconnection of a DG system composed of separate components requires testing by the cooperative.

Several resources on interconnection agreements are available. One is the interconnection requirements document developed by Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative for PV systems, available at www.ssvec.org/documents/SunWatts/10_08Section1InterconnectUpdatedMar08.pdf. In addition, the Interstate Renewable Energy Council provides a guide to DG interconnection issues on its Web site, available at www.irecusa.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ConnectDocs/IC_Guide.pdf.

Comprehensive interconnection rules typically standardize the interconnection applications, review procedures, interconnection contracts, and interconnection fees. They also establish standardized technical requirements for the DG technologies. For more information, see NRECA’s White Paper on Distributed Generation, issued in August 2007.

In a very few situations, par ticularly with investor-owned utility (IOU) distribution systems, intercon-nection might be governed by federal regulations established by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in Order 2006.

http://www.ssvec.org/documents/SunWatts/10_08Section1InterconnectUpdatedMar08.pdf

http://www.irecusa.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ConnectDocs/IC_Guide.pdf<200A>




In most cooperative systems, the rates, terms, and conditions of interconnection will be established by the cooperative. NRECA’s DG interconnection toolkit contains a wealth of information on interconnection issues to help cooperatives adopt procedures, contracts, and rates that serve those cooperatives’ specific needs.

Standby Charges and Fixed Fees

Member-consumers may think that in generating their own electricity they can dramatically reduce their monthly electric bill by significantly reducing the amount of energy they buy from the cooperative. Many cooperatives are concerned about consumer-owned generation for exactly this reason. Cooperatives recover a significant por tion of the fixed costs of providing service through an energy charge. By significantly reducing usage, consumers also significantly reduce their contribution toward the cooperative’s fixed costs and margin.

To protect themselves from this lost contribution toward fixed costs, some cooperatives have designed their rates so that monthly customer fixed charges cover the cooperatives’ fixed costs and margins. Other cooperatives have adopted a standby charge or higher fixed monthly fee for consumers who generate their own electricity. Unfor tunately, this approach is controversial because it deprives consumers of par t of the value they expected from self-generation by increasing the minimum bill they must pay regardless of how much power they generate. Manufacturers of distributed generators and environmental advocates firmly oppose standby charges; in some states, standby charges are prohibited by law.

Cooperatives that have adopted standby fees have found that they need to address the perception that these charges are discriminatory or intended to prevent consumers from installing their own generation. Such fees generally need to be explained carefully to demonstrate that they are intended to ensure rate equity among all member-consumers. It is also impor tant that such fees are seen as having been adopted and put on the books long before they are imposed on a consumer-generator. Otherwise, the fee looks more like deliberate discrimination against an individual consumer.

For many years, industrial customers with their own generation have had standby rates for those times when they needed the utility for backup. These rates were designed to recover the facility charges that were applied only when the generator was not running.




The NRECA’s manual on rates, Developing Rates for Distributed Generation, provides details on DG costs. It is available in the DG interconnection toolkit.

Net Metering

A member-consumer may expect to receive credit at the retail rate for electricity they send to the grid—that is, for any generation produced at any par ticular time in excess of the consumer’s load at that time. This is called net metering. Manufacturers of distributed generators and environmental advocates strongly suppor t net metering because it increases the economic viability of PV systems. Some consumers and government officials believe (incorrectly) that if a utility does not offer net metering, consumers cannot interconnect to the distribution system or will not be compensated for the generation they expor t.

Most cooperatives, however, either do not offer net metering or restrict it to a limited number of generation types and sizes. Those cooperatives are concerned that net metering overcompensates consumer-owned generators for their output. Most cooperatives pay for all exported generation at the level required by the PURPA, which is the cooperatives’ avoided cost (generally, this comprises the offset fuel cost a utility would incur if it had generated the power itself or purchased it from another source).

Other cooperatives have concluded that some net metering, par ticularly for small PV, makes political and economic sense for their systems. They have weighed the cost of net metering these small units against the cost of the additional time, equipment, and effor t needed for separate accounting, and concluded that it costs less to offer net metering. Some cooperatives also have found that PV fits well into their power supply por tfolio by offering high-value on-peak power, and thus is a good candidate for net metering.

The majority of cooperatives that do not net meter use two meters or a single advanced meter capable of reading power flows in each direction to provide a way for member-consumers to pay their fair share of costs for electric service while benefiting from their own PV system. This approach is consistent with the PURPA, where the consumer buys power from the cooperative at the retail rate and sells power to the cooperative at the avoided—or wholesale—cost.

Whichever route the cooperative takes, it is helpful if its policy for purchasing expor ted generation is adopted well before any consumer seeks to interconnect PV. The policy should be extremely clear and should be suppor ted by data demonstrating that the policy is necessary to ensure equitable rates for all consumers on the system. A cooperative’s consumer information on self-generation




should explain (1) the cooperative’s policy, (2) what net metering is, and—if necessary, (3) why the cooperative does not offer net metering. An issue paper on net metering is available on NRECA’s Web site at www.nreca.org/PublicPolicy/ElectricIndustry/distributedgeneration.htm.

Member-consumers may ask about the difference between net metering and net billing. Within net metering, the electricity being delivered from the member-consumer to the grid is netted against the electricity being delivered to the member-consumer, so the value of power imported and exported is the same. Consumers are paid full retail value for the wholesale power they export to the grid. By contrast, net billing nets the value of power exported against the value of power imported, allowing the retail and wholesale power to be valued at different levels. The netting occurs in the billing process. Under both approaches, the consumer has first call on generator output. The utility only buys that portion of the consumer’s output that exceeds simultaneous demand. The consumer only buys from the utility that portion of the consumer’s load that exceeds the simultaneous output of its generator.

As of August 2009, 45 states and the District of Columbia have some kind of net metering rule. Of those 46 jurisdictions, 26 require rural electric cooperatives (RECs) to offer net metering:

• Arizona• Arkansas• California• Colorado• District of Columbia• Georgia• Hawaii• Kentucky• Louisiana• Maine• Maryland• Michigan (may not apply to

cooperatives that opt for member regulation under Public Act 167 2008)

• Minnesota• Missouri• Montana (applies to most of the

Montana Electric Cooperative Association’s 26 member cooperatives)

• Nebraska• New Hampshire• New Mexico• Oklahoma (applies to cooperatives

regulated by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission)

• Oregon

• Utah (applies to most cooperatives; effective March 2008, cooperatives serving fewer than 1,000 customers may discontinue making net metering available to customers not already net metering)

• Vermont• Virginia• Washington• West Virginia• Wyoming

In these states, the consumer’s meter runs backwards when that consumer sends excess electricity to the grid. Some states prohibit payment to consumers for annual net expor ts, while others require utilities to pay consumers avoided cost or credit them with the full retail price for their excess electricity. Detailed information on state-level requirements for net metering is available at the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE), available at www.dsireusa.org. The

http://www.nreca.org/PublicPolicy/ElectricIndustry/distributedgeneration.htm

http://www.dsireusa.org




EERE Web site provides a table and a map with state-by-state net metering rules, available at www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/netmetering.shtml. For more information on net metering, see the NRECA’s White Paper on Distributed Generation and Issues Report.

Getting Ready for Your Member-Consumers

1. Appoint a single point of contact for interested consumers. Most cooperatives will choose to identify a single point of contact at the cooperative for consumers interested in PV. Having one point of contact will help to avoid confusion on the part of both the cooperative and the consumer, prevent consumers from undergoing an inadvertent runaround, and ensure that they are given a single, consistent message about PV at the cooperative. In many cases, the consumer’s first interaction with the cooperative concerning a PV system will set the tone for the relationship between the consumer and the cooperative for years to come. A positive interaction with the cooperative’s PV or DG expert can put things on the proper footing from the beginning.

2. Develop a communications strategy. The first step in preparing to help member-consumers interested in PV systems is to develop a communications strategy. Intended to promote communication between member-consumers and the cooperative, and between the cooperative and the broader community, the strategy has several aims:

•Encourage member-consumers to talk with the cooperative representative first and involve you early in their plans for a PV system

•Explain the cooperative’s goals

•Explain the cooperative’s responsibilities and the balance that you must achieve among these responsibilities (helping member-consumers, suppor ting the community, protecting the environment, and maintaining the reliability of the electricity system)

•Encourage member-consumers to use the handout material you provide

•Celebrate and adver tise to the community and the state government the cooperative’s positive achievements

Member-consumers need to know that they should meet with the appropriate cooperative represen-tatives before they purchase a PV system. This meeting will allow both the cooperative and the consumer to gain an understanding of mutual and individual expectations. During your meeting with a member-consumer, you also will have an opportunity to explain the cooperative’s goals, which include protecting the safety of cooperative personnel and other member-consumers, maintaining the integrity and reliability of the grid, and establishing mechanisms to ensure rate equity for all members. The earlier in this evaluation process a consumer meets with the cooperative representative, the more positive their subsequent

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/netmetering.shtml




interactions are likely to be. Early on, the consumer will not have firmly established expectations and will not yet have made a financial outlay based on those expectations. Early notice also can help the cooperative to ensure that its processes are in place to address the new PV resource adequately.

An important par t of your communications strategy is to encourage member-consumers to use all of the materials you provide, and to contact you with any questions or concerns about the material.

3. Prepare an interconnection packet. After developing a communications strategy, the next step is to prepare an interconnection packet. The packet could include:

•Contact information for the relevant staff members at the cooperative

•A capital cost recovery analysis worksheet

•A summary of the interconnection process

•An interconnection application

•The cooperative’s interconnection contract

•The DG rates summary sheet

Several resources for capital cost recovery analysis have been suggested by cooperatives. Each of these resources helps to walk member-consumers through the process that will help them decide whether to buy a PV system. Links to these resources are provided in the Consumer Handout Packet. (See Section 6.)

Point out that the cooperative understands the complexities of interconnection issues and has streamlined the process to allow safe, reliable, efficient, and cost-effective interconnection of member-consumers’ PV systems. Include a copy of the cooperative’s interconnection contract in the packet for member-consumers.

In addition to providing a summary of the interconnection process, you may want to provide a flowchar t showing highlights of the process. The Iowa Association of Electric Cooperatives (IAEC) has developed a set of communication tools that includes a sample document describing the intercon-nection process and a flowchar t. The documents are available on the Cooperative Research Network (CRN) Web site at www.cooperative.com/general/resources/ConsumerKit/ConsumerOwnedKit.htm.

As indicated above, NRECA’s DG interconnection toolkit contains a wealth of information that includes consumer guidelines for interconnection and model interconnection applications and contracts. The toolkit will be updated as relevant standards and rules are changed. Cooperatives can draw on this information in developing materials for member-consumers interested in PV systems.

https://www.cooperative.com/general/resources/ConsumerKit/ConsumerOwnedKit.htm




4. Establish rates and fees. All cooperatives should have developed PURPA compliance procedures in the late 1970s. Those procedures should include rates and fees for QFs, including PV systems, as well as the rates that the cooperative should pay for the output of such generators. Co-ops also may want to consider the value of the power based on peak power costs. It can be helpful to look at successful co-op solar programs and use them as models.

Many cooperatives have not received any interconnection requests since 1978 and so have not dusted off their old PURPA compliance procedures. It may be helpful, therefore, for cooperatives to review the potential costs and benefits associated with PV systems and develop appropriate rate schedules, as discussed in Developing Rates for Distributed Generation.

This manual provides general background information on rate development and reviews issues related to DG. The section on utility cost structure and rate setting addresses distribution cooperative cost-of-service issues and rate design options. The section on DG issues includes a discussion of requirements contracts, impacts on system requirements, and utility costs and interconnection requirements.

The section on the development of DG rates describes considerations and processes involved in evaluating and developing rates applicable to DG. As noted in this section, cost analysis and rate design must recognize the specific impacts that each DG application will have on a cooperative’s costs, and on service to other member-consumers. The final section of the manual outlines an evaluation process for DG applications.

When its evaluation process is completed, a cooperative will have developed:

•A fee schedule for interconnection applications, likely keyed to the size of the generator seeking to interconnect;

•A fee schedule or formula for any necessary system impact and facilities studies potentially required for interconnection. No study will be required for most PV installations, par ticularly where a pre-cer tified PV package is interconnected to a stable feeder without a high level of other DG;

•Retail rate structures for consumer-generators that may include higher monthly customer fees or standby charges to recover the cooperative’s fixed costs of service (alternatively, some cooperatives may choose to move all consumers to a rate structure under which fixed costs are recovered through a fixed customer charge);

•A rate schedule for purchase of consumer-owned generation, including a predetermined standard rate for all generators with a capacity under 100 kW or a schedule reflecting the price that the cooperative’s power supplier will pay for such power ; such rates may or may not provide for net




metering for some types of generation, depending on the cooperative and its individual goals or situation; and

•Detailed explanations of each fee, rate, and annual true-up process, with data demonstrating the reasons why the cooperative adopted the specific charges.

The detailed explanation may not necessarily be given to individual consumers but should be available in the event that the cooperative’s charges are challenged in the media, in cour t, or by the government. Understandably, rates and fees are among the most contentious elements of the interconnection process and are most likely to be challenged by consumers.

5. Develop application guidelines. The application guidelines are an engineering tool. The guidelines establish the technical interconnection process and help to guide the cooperative’s engineers as they seek to determine what impact a proposed generator may have on the cooperative and what remedial measures may be necessary to protect the cooperative in light of those impacts.

NRECA’s DG interconnection toolkit includes model application guidelines developed with the NRECA Transmission and Distribution (T&D) Engineering Committee. This is a model and should be reviewed by each cooperative’s engineering team and management to ensure that it meets the needs of the individual cooperative. The cooperative’s engineering team also should review IEEE Standard1547.2, available at grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc21/1547.2/1547.2_index.html.

Cooperatives also should refer to the DG applets—software tools—that CRN has developed to help distribution and planning engineers in assessing and applying wind and PV generation on their systems’ distribution feeders. Information is available at https://www.cooperative.com/about/NRECA/CRN/Results/Pages/TheImpactsofDGWindGenerationon.aspx

6. Develop internal interconnection procedures. It will be very helpful to most cooperatives to have a written internal procedure for processing interconnection applications. Such procedures explain who in the cooperative is responsible for each aspect of processing the application, the time permitted for each step, and the points in the process when further contact with the interconnection applicant is necessary. They ensure that no applications fall through the cracks and that the cooperative enjoys continued good relationships with consumers applying for interconnection. Unexplained processing delays are among the primary causes of conflict with consumers.

Once the cooperative has adopted internal procedures, it can develop consumer-focused materials that walk consumers through the interconnection procedures, explain the schedule for

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc21/1547.2/1547.2_index.html

https://www.cooperative.com/about/NRECA/CRN/Results/Pages/TheImpactsofDGWindGenerationon.aspx

https://www.cooperative.com/about/NRECA/CRN/Results/Pages/TheImpactsofDGWindGenerationon.aspx




consideration of the interconnection application, and provide the consumer with deadlines for meeting his or her obligations in the interconnection process (such as the time within which the consumer must provide any missing data in the application form before the application is deemed withdrawn).

The NRECA’s DG interconnection toolkit includes model interconnection procedures that can help cooperatives to develop both internal processes and consumer guidance. The model should be reviewed by each cooperative’s management and engineering team and modified as necessary to meet the needs of the individual cooperative.

7. Develop an application form. Your cooperative also should adopt an application form. The completed form should provide contact information and basic engineering data about the member-consumer’s proposed facility, as well as information needed to ascer tain appropriate interconnection requirements. Ask the member-consumer to obtain and verify the accuracy of the information by checking with the manufacturer.

The NRECA’s DG interconnection toolkit has model interconnection applications, including a simplified application for very small generators and a more complex application form for larger generators. The models should be reviewed by each cooperative’s engineering team and management and modified appropriately.

8. Develop an interconnection contract or contracts. As with all of the other elements of the interconnection process, cooperatives generally will be better off if they have developed an intercon-nection contract or contracts before any consumer seeks to interconnect a generator. Most co-ops with PV programs have simple, shor t interconnection agreements to minimize the administrative burden. It is simpler to interconnect a PV system to the grid than a wind generator. There is little danger of islanding PV (without a battery) if the system goes down.

NRECA’s DG interconnection toolkit includes two model contracts: one very simple contract for cer tain small generators and a more complex contract for larger generators. Each cooperative’s management and lawyers should review the models carefully and modify them as necessary to meet the legal, economic, and policy goals of the individual cooperative. Co-ops also should provide a new interconnection agreement for any new member-consumer who occupies a proper ty with an existing PV system.


S e c t i o n 2 : P V S y s t e m C o s t s & F i n a n c i n g O p t i o n s 2 2 o f 7 2

PV System Costs & Financing OptionsS E C T I O N 2

PV System Costs & Financing OptionsA major barrier to residential PV installations is cost. Economics is a key concern of those wanting to purchase a PV system, according to a 2007/2008 survey conducted by SEPA.

Expected Range of Costs

PV module costs represented slightly more than 50% of total installed costs, and inver ter costs represented just under 10%, according to the survey repor t. Researchers repor t that most industry exper ts anticipate an over-supply of PV modules in 2009, which will put downward pressure on module prices and presumably on total installed costs. Details on estimating the cost of an installed PV system are available in the consumer handout section of this repor t (Section 6).

A February 2009 repor t by DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Tracking the Sun: The Installed Cost of Photovoltaics in the U.S. from 1998-2007, examined 37,000 grid-connected PV systems in 12 states. Costs varied widely across the 12 states. For example, the cost of a PV system of 10 kW or less, installed in 2006 or 2007, ranged from $7.60/watt in Arizona to $8.80/watt in Minnesota and $10.60/watt in Maryland. Using these figures, a 2 kW system would cost approximately $15,200 in Arizona, $17,600 in Minnesota, and $21,200 in Maryland. Researchers attribute the cost variations to the differing size and maturity of PV markets, with larger markets stimulating greater competition and better access to lower-cost products. Also, incentives play a large role in installed costs.

Even with small PV systems, economies of scale come into play. In California, for example, the installed cost of a 2 kW PV system can range from $13,000 to $20,000, while the installed cost of a 5 kW system can range from $30,000 to $40,000, according to the California Energy Commission.

F A C TO R S A F F E C T I N G C O S T

In addition to the installed cost of a PV system, several factors can influence the system’s overall cost. Among them are market dynamics, federal and state tax credits, and financial incentives.

Market dynamics. PV modules are a global commodity, and world supply and demand affects product costs. As a result of the global recession, average silicon prices are expected to decline by more than 30% in 2009, according to an analysis by New Energy Finance. This decline would translate into a 12% reduction in PV module prices. As demand for PV systems weakens, excess capacity is flooding the market, driving down prices. Looking ahead, growing competition from thin-film production may push crystalline silicon module manufacturers to reduce their selling prices.




In addition, prices for commodities such as steel, aluminum, and copper influence the balance-of-system costs. The prices of these commodities have fallen in dramatically in the current economy but are likely to increase as the economy recovers.

Federal tax credit. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 includes a residential solar investment tax credit provision. The provision extends the 30% investment tax credit (ITC) for residential solar proper ty through December 31, 2016. The provision also removes the cap on qualified solar electric proper ty expenditures (formerly $2,000) for a system placed in service after December 31, 2008.

State incentives. Incentives at the state level resemble a patchwork quilt. A few states offer generous incentives for PV systems, some offer more limited incentives, and many offer none. State incentives, such as rebates, buy-downs, and loans, can reduce the installed cost of a PV system significantly. The Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (www.dsireusa.org/) provides information on tax incentives, loans, grants, and rebates available in each state.

Given the relatively high up-front cost of a PV system, cooperatives may want to consider a buy-down program (typically a rebate) to make the systems more economically attractive. A number of consumer-owned utilities, for instance, offer incentives in the form of rebates—so many dollars per watt—to residential and commercial customers who wish to install PV systems.

In a repor t issued in 2008, SEPA explored business approaches that utilities could employ to turn customer-sited PV generation into an oppor tunity by creating new value in the solar value chain. The repor t, Utility Solar Business Models: Emerging Utility Strategies & Innovation, is available at www.solarelectricpower.org/media/84333/sepa%20usbm%201.pdf.

Financing Options

Nearly all residential PV systems are financed by conventional methods—cash, first or second mortgage, or home equity line of credit or loan. The SEPA survey of PV installations in six states, conducted between late 2007 and early 2008, found that a majority (67% ) of respondents paid cash for their PV systems. Twenty-one percent used a home equity loan, 8% used mortgage refinancing, and 2% took out a loan. Of these, 5% used more than one financing method.




C O N V E N T I O N A L F I N A N C I N G M E T H O D S

Many consumers have used cash from a cer tificate of deposit or a money market account to pay for their PV systems. While the yields on CDs and money market accounts currently are quite low, exper ts suggest that consumers compare those yields with the return on a PV system, especially when they factor in federal and state incentives.

Some experts consider refinancing a mortgage to be one of the best options for raising cash to pay for a PV system. As a result of the housing downturn, some homeowners may not have enough equity to finance a PV system. For those with sufficient equity, however, a line of credit or a loan is an option.

Another option for homeowners is utilizing an energy improvement or energy efficient mortgage. To obtain an energy efficient mortgage, a homeowner’s residence must undergo a home energy rating. These mortgages, which can be used for a PV system, are sponsored by federally insured mortgage programs (the Federal Housing Authority and the Depar tment of Veterans Affairs), as well as the conventional secondary mortgage market (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).

As a result of the economic recession, many homeowners may not have access to financing on the scale needed for a PV system. For these consumers, several new financing options may be of interest. However, some of these options are available in only a few states at present.

N E W F I N A N C I N G O P T I O N S

Power purchase agreements (PPAs). PPAs are common financing tools for large commercial power projects but have been introduced to the residential market only recently. Under such an arrangement, which was pioneered by a California company, the provider finances, installs, owns, and operates a PV system on the homeowner’s proper ty.

Solar leasing. Like a PPA, the provider finances, installs, owns, and operates a PV system on the homeowner’s proper ty in a solar leasing arrangement. The homeowner agrees to make monthly lease payments to the provider over a set period of time. At the end of the lease—which can be from seven to 20 years—the homeowner can renew the lease or purchase the PV system at fair market value. The number of residential lease programs is limited, but there are programs currently available in Arizona, California, Connecticut, and par ts of Oregon.

Vendor financing. Some PV module manufacturers offer 15-, 20-, and 30-year loans to customers at fixed or adjustable rates. Among the companies that offer such financing are BP Solar, SunPower, and Sharp Solar. In addition, some PV distributors may offer financing through their installer networks.




State loan programs. Some states, such as Oregon, have established loan programs to help homeowners buy PV systems. The Oregon program is administered by the state’s Energy Office.

State rebates or grants. Until recently, Colorado’s program offered to cost-share the cost of a rebate with the utility. The program may be renewed for 2010. Illinois also had a state rebate in effect. (See www.dsireusa.org for updated information on every state.)

Association financing. The Electric & Gas Industries Association (EGIA) provides renewable energy financing to its contractor members through its GEOSmart Sustainable Financing Solutions. GEOSmart’s secured installment program, which provides extended fixed terms and requires no equity on loans up to $75,000, is intended for PV projects.

Property tax assessments. Some municipalities are considering a program that would allow homeowners to finance a PV system through increased proper ty tax assessments. Under the concept, first proposed by the city of Berkeley, California, a city borrows the money for a residential PV system and the homeowner repays the money over 20 years through higher proper ty taxes. Colorado passed a bill in 2008 creating a state-wide financing program that would makes loans to homeowners for renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements that could be repaid through proper ty taxes.

NREL issued a repor t in March 2009, Solar Photovoltaic Financing: Residential Sector Deployment, which examines both traditional financing and emerging financial structures for residential PV systems. This is available at www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/44853.pdf. NREL also has issued a guide on solar leasing, Solar Leasing for Residential Photovoltaic Systems, which provides examples of programs, available at www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/43572.pdf.

Cooperatives may want to include information on financing methods in the consumer handout packet that they provide to member-consumers.


S e c t i o n 3 : C a s e S t u d i e s 2 6 o f 7 2

Case StudiesS E C T I O N 3

Case StudiesEight cooperatives—and their members—par ticipated in case studies of PV systems for this guide. The case studies range across diverse geographic areas and cover a range of PV systems from 1.5 kW to 10 kW.

Each case study looks at the benefits and costs of PV systems from the perspective of the cooperative as well as the cooperative member-consumer.

Key lessons learned from the case studies are the impor tance of maintaining an open dialogue between a cooperative and its member-consumers, and the value of striking an agreement that works for all par ties.

The cooperatives profiled are:

• Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative (EC), Arizona

• Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative (REC), California

• San Luis Valley Rural Electric Cooperative (REC), Colorado

• Peace River Electric Cooperative (EC), Flor ida

• Egyptian Electric Cooperative (EC) Association, Ill inois

• Kit Carson Electric Cooperative (EC), New Mexico

• CoServ Electric, Texas

• Washington Electric Cooperative (EC), Vermont




Sulphur Springs Valley Rural Electric Cooperative (Arizona)

C O O P E R AT I V E R E P R E S E N TAT I V E

Alber t Gomez, Small Commercial and Residential Energy Management

C O O P E R AT I V E M E M B E R I N T E RV I E W E D

Dave Grieshop: 5.25 kW system, installed in March 2009

W H AT C O O P E R AT I V E M E M B E R D I D A N D W H Y

Grieshop installed a PV system because of the federal tax credits and co-op rebate. He said that it was an economic—not a financial—decision.

Grieshop decided to split his PV system between two roofs of his home, with 16 panels on the southeast-facing roof and 14 panels on the southwest-facing roof. He considered several panel manufacturers and chose Suntech. Each panel in Grieshop’s system has its own inverter, known as a micro-inverter, which can increase system efficiency. Grieshop was considering a system of 4.5–5 kW, but his installer recommended 5.25 kW. Grieshop decided against a battery backup because the heat shortens battery life. His system does not have adjustable mounting racks or tracking. He said the system is well grounded to protect it against lightning strikes.

Grieshop used NREL’s PVWatts to assess the solar resource at his site, but noted the Web site’s limitations. (PVWatts is a calculator that helps to determine energy production and costs savings of grid-connected PV energy. It is available at www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/. PVWatts provides data by city and, for Grieshop, the closest city was Tucson, 72 miles from his home and 2,500 feet below the elevation at his site. This solar resource does not vary widely by geographic zone or altitude, however.

Zoning, permitting. Grieshop had no zoning issues with which to deal. He paid approximately $300 for a permit from the city of Sierra Vista, Arizona.

Project economics, output, and cost. Grieshop wanted his PV system to meet approximately 60% of his electricity requirements. After just two months of operation, Grieshop claimed his payback period would be 9.4 years but expects to recoup his out-of-pocket expenses within 12 years.




Grieshop’s PV system cost $38,325, including $6,500 for installation. He said the installed cost works out to $7.30/watt.

Incentives. Grieshop took advantage of the rebate offered by his cooperative. Under its SunWatts program, the co-op pays $4/watt or 50% of the total installed cost, whichever is less. Funding for the SunWatts program comes from a surcharge—the Renewable Energy Standard Tariff—placed on all member-consumers’ bills. This surcharge is mandated by the Arizona Corporation Commission.

In Grieshop’s case, the co-op paid $19,162.50—half of the installed cost. Grieshop plans to claim the federal tax credit of 30% on the net cost basis in 2010. Arizona has no sales tax, and Grieshop’s proper ty taxes did not increase as a result of his PV installation. The state also offers a $1,000 rebate for renewable energy systems, but Grieshop used this money for his solar hot water system rather than his PV system.

The Arizona Corporation Commission has adopted a net metering requirement, and the co-op expects to have net metering in place by November 2009. Grieshop has suggested that the co-op credit one-half of any excess power to the co-op customer and the other half to Operation Roundup. He said this approach could address concerns about member-consumers subsidizing those with renewable energy systems, while helping those customers who need assistance.

Finding an installer. Grieshop said he talked with a lot of people about installers and did a great deal of research. This effor t led him to one company whose three owners, all cer tified, do all of the work. Grieshop said the owners’ involvement ensured quality work and safety compliance. He added that the president of the company is cer tified by the

Nor th American Board of Cer tified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP).

Interaction with the cooperative. Grieshop felt that the cooperative was very suppor tive of his project. Because the installation was a parallel, micro-inver ter system, the engineering staff checked with outside sources before inspecting it, he said. He added that, when the co-op inspection was completed, the head engineer understood the system well.

C O O P E R AT I V E P O L I C I E S

Interconnection agreement. Sulphur Springs Valley REC has a standard interconnection agreement that members with small power production facilities are required to sign. The agreement, available on the cooperative’s Web site at www.ssvec.org/documents/SunWatts/10_08Section1InterconnectUpdatedMar08.pdf, applies to systems of 15 kW or less.




Net metering policy. When the Arizona Corporation Commission approves the co-op’s net metering tariff, which is expected in September 2009, the co-op will offer net metering.

C O S T S A N D B E N E F I T S

Member-consumer perspective. Grieshop paid no charges to the cooperative and his homeowner’s insurance did not increase because of the PV installation. He is “delighted” with the performance of his system, and plans to add two more panels, bringing the total to 32.

Cooperative perspective. Sulphur Springs Valley EC has approximately 300 residential member-consumers with installed PV systems. Albert Gomez said that feedback from these member-consumers has been positive. He noted that both the costs and benefits of residential PV installations are too small to calculate, but pointed out that funding for the rebate program is

required by the Arizona Corporation Commission.




Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative (California)


Jessica Nelson, Energy Services Manager

C O O P E R AT I V E M E M B E R S I N T E RV I E W E D

Bill and Terri Banka: 3.64 kW system, installed in January 2009Pete and Julie Hochrein: 2.4 kW system, installed in March 2008


The Bankas are foresters with scientific backgrounds. They installed their PV system for environmental reasons and because of concerns about finite nonrenewable energy resources.

Although they installed their PV system for environmental reasons, the Bankas wanted to see if it could meet nearly all of their electricity needs. The couple began by reducing their electricity use by roughly 25%. Originally, the Bankas planned to install 24 panels, but for cost reasons, they installed only 20. With their reduced energy use, however, the smaller system more than meets their needs. The Bankas chose a pole-mounted system that they can adjust on a seasonal basis. For maximum output, the panels are tilted south at 15 degrees from horizontal in the summer, 25 degrees in the fall and spring, and 35 degrees during the winter. Because of high winds in the area, the Bankas’ installer engineered their pole-mounted system for high winds. The Bankas decided against a battery backup because of the cost.

The Hochreins’ conservation ethic led them to consider installing a PV system, but it was the availability of a rebate from their co-op that prompted them to act. Initially, the couple wanted to meet about 75% of their electricity needs. They began by reducing their energy use. Thanks to a hot water coil in their wood stove and the addition of several PV panels to the original number, the Hochreins were able to produce roughly 20% more electricity than they needed.

The Hochreins’ 16-panel system is mounted on the roof of their house. Shade was an issue at their site, so they trimmed a tree on the east side of their house and will have to monitor its future growth. In addition, Hochrein said that several shade trees to the south of their house will have to be topped at some point. The couple’s system does not have adjustable mounting racks, tracking, or a battery backup.




Zoning, permitting. The Bankas live in a rural subdivision and said the homeowners association raised no zoning issues. Both the Bankas and the Hochreins had to obtain building permits.

Project economics, output, and cost. The Bankas’ installer designed their system to meet 80% of their monthly electricity use. They estimated a payback of 20 years, but said that this was not a factor in their assessment of the system. The Bankas paid the co-op a fee of $350, which covered the meter, inspection, technical assistance, and processing of the rebate application.

The couple’s building permit cost $240. The installed cost of the Bankas’ PV system was $37,355, of which $4,324 was the cost of installation.

Using the Find Solar Web site, available at www.findsolar.com, the Hochreins estimated a payback of approximately 12 years for their PV system. The couple’s system cost $21,886, including the installation cost of $1,800. The Hochreins paid $300 for a new meter.

Incentives. The Bankas were eligible for a $6,000 rebate from the cooperative. To qualify for the rebate, a member-consumer is urged to implement energy efficiency measures and must submit a Residential Energy Efficiency Checklist with the rebate application. Funding for the rebates comes from a 1.05% Solar Surcharge billed to all member-consumers, and from the

existing Public Benefits Charge. Together, these constitute a 3.9% public benefits charge on each bill. The co-op’s rebate program was launched in response to a state mandate. As par t of the rebate application, the co-op requires an estimate of the electricity the PV system will produce to ensure that members are realistic about their expectations.

The Bankas plan to take advantage of the 30% federal tax credit.

The Hochreins were eligible for a $6,000 rebate from the cooperative. They also took advantage of the federal tax credit but, at the time their system was installed, the credit was capped at $2,000.

Finding an installer. The Bankas said that it was impor tant for a PV installer to have local knowledge. They began with a list of local solar contractors provided by their co-op. After talking with four of the companies on the list, they chose an installer that met their requirements. They relied on their installer to recommend the PV system that would be

best for them. Their installer sent pictures to give the Bankas an idea of the size and shape of the recommended system, but Bill Banka thinks that other co-op customers should arrange to see an installed system similar to the one they want, rather than just relying on pictures.




The Hochreins used the list of installers provided by their co-op to select a contractor, and then obtained references from others who had used the same company.

Interaction with the cooperative. The Bankas said that the cooperative was very supportive. The co-op’s Jessica Nelson visited the Bankas in 2008 and used a site analysis tool to assess the suitability for a PV system. She told the Bankas the location they had chosen was very good.

The Hochreins knew Jessica Nelson before they installed their PV system and felt that this had been helpful. The couple was the first to par ticipate in the co-op’s new solar program, so working with someone they knew made the process easier. The co-op carried an ar ticle in its newsletter about the Hochreins’ PV system, which prompted other members to contact the co-op. The Hochreins also received telephone calls from members asking about their system. As a result, two of the couple’s neighbors installed PV systems.


Interconnection agreement. Plumas-Sierra REC has a standard interconnection agreement that members with small renewable energy systems are required to sign. The agreement applies to systems that do not exceed 25 kW.

Net metering policy. Under its net metering program, Plumas-Sierra REC requires members with renewable energy systems to install an additional meter or a bi-directional meter. In addition, renewable energy system owners must pay facilities fees, public benefits charges, taxes, and net-wholesale power cost adjustment fees, if applicable, on a monthly basis. If, at

the end of any normal monthly billing cycle, the energy used by the member is less than the energy generated, the member receives a credit for the excess electricity (in kWh). The member can “bank” the credit and apply it to subsequent months, for up to a year. The cycle begins in April. A letter explaining the co-op’s net metering requirements is available at www.psrec.coop/downloads/netmeterlet123108.pdf.


Member-consumer perspective. The Bankas are very satisfied with their PV system, which is now meeting, and in some months exceeding, their electricity needs.

The Hochreins are very pleased with their PV system, which is outperforming its rated output.




Cooperative perspective. Plumas-Sierra REC has seven members with PV systems, and several more applications are pending, said Jessica Nelson. The co-op offers site visits to members interested in installing a PV system. During these visits, the co-op representative answers questions and ensures that a good solar resource is available. The co-op seeks to

provide information to members that will help them decide whether to proceed with a PV system. The co-op has par tnered with Cooperative Community Energy, a cooperative for PV and other renewable energy systems, which will analyze a member’s site for a fee of $150.

Jessica Nelson said that the co-op has enjoyed good relationships with those members who have installed PV systems. Members have said they are pleased with the co-op’s handling of their projects and are satisfied with their systems’ performance. However, Nelson stated that several members have expressed disappointment that the design of their system did not shed snow as well as they had expected.

The co-op is required by the state to allocate $200,000 annually for the rebate program for 10 years. The co-op is promoting rebate applications because it sees PV generation as a viable generation source in the near future. “We provide power now with poles and wires, but in the future, we will provide distributed generation systems to our members,” said Nelson. “We want to maintain the relationship with our members.”




San Luis Valley Rural Electric Cooperative (Colorado)


David Mixa, Energy Services Specialist


Marsha Felmlee: 5.3 kW system (2.9 kW, installed in October 2008; 2.4 kW, installed in May 2009)John Tembrock: 2.56 kW, installed in September 2006Gary Wilkinson: 2.1 kW, installed in September 2008


Marsha Felmlee said she and her husband decided to install a PV system because they planned to retire in 5–10 years and wanted to reduce their expenses. They live in an all-electric house. They had been considering PV for some time but were prompted to act because of the incentives.

The Felmlees’ installer used Solar Pathfinder—a site analysis tool available at www.solarpathfinder.com—and NREL’s PVWatts to assess the site’s suitability. Shade was not an issue. The installer recommended a 5 kW system. For cost reasons, the couple chose to have the system installed in two phases—2.9 kW at first, followed by 2.4 kW. The system is ground mounted and has no adjustable racks or tracking and no battery backup.

John Tembrock and his wife had used small PV systems to power their tools and their recreational vehicle; he also had taken a couple of home tours to see some installed PV systems. Tembrock said it was a logical step to install a system because it would help to power their house. The Tembrocks were building a house at the time the PV system was being installed, so they chose energy-efficient appliances to reduce their electricity use. Tembrock calculated the loads from the appliances to estimate the system’s rated output. He said the system produces approximately 10 kWh a day. The system has a battery backup, which meets the house’s critical loads. Tembrock is considering an extension of the system to meet all of the couple’s electricity needs.

Tembrock conducted his own site assessment, measuring the height of nearby trees and approximating the angle of the sun. Shade was not an issue. The system is ground mounted on seasonally adjustable racks but has no tracking device. Tembrock adjusts the racks twice a year, a task that takes two people about one-half hour.





Gary Wilkinson installed a PV system to reduce his electricity bill. He also advocates renewable energy to his high school science students, which he said motivated him to “walk the walk.” He and his wife wanted a PV system that would meet most, if not all, of their electricity needs. Prior to installation, they examined their electricity use, reducing it by changing out light bulbs and buying an energy-efficient appliance. Wilkinson estimated the cost of a system that would meet the family’s needs and then gave his installer a dollar limit.

Wilkinson monitored his site for shade for more than a year. The only issue was a large tree near the best position on his proper ty. That tree casts par tial shade on the PV panels for an hour in the afternoon—but only for two months in the fall. The system is mounted on a pole approximately 80 feet from the house. It has a dual-axis tracker, which offers more accurate tracking than a single-axis tracker. There is no battery backup.

Zoning, permitting. The Felmlees’ installer obtained a state electrical permit. Tembrock applied for the permit himself. The Wilkinson’s installer also obtained their state electrical permit.

Project economics, output, and cost. The Felmlees wanted their PV system to meet at least half of their electricity use. Their installer recommended a 5 kW system. The installed cost of the 2.9 kW system was $28,000; the installed cost for the additional 2.4 kW section was $15, 431. In addition, the Felmlees paid $100 to the co-op for a meter. The installed cost of

the first system included $6,000 for the inver ter, which was sized to suppor t the planned expansion of the system.

Tembrock calculated a simple payback of 14.9 years for his PV system. He saved money by installing the system himself. The installed cost of his system was $16,500, which included $1,200 for the battery. He paid $40 for the state inspection and $37 to the co-op to check the installation.

Wilkinson used NREL’s PVWatts to estimate a payback of approximately 25 years. The installed cost of his system was approximately $32,000. Of that, installation accounted for roughly $6,000, but that cost covered installation of both the PV system and a small wind turbine. Wilkinson paid an inspection fee of $50. He did not have to pay for the meter.




The cooperative requires all member-customers with PV systems to pay a $100 inspection fee when installation is completed.

Incentives. The San Luis Valley REC offers rebates of $3/watt, up to a maximum of $4,500, for PV systems up to 10 kW. This rebate is matched by one from the Colorado Governor’s Energy Office, for a total rebate of $9,000 maximum. Funding for San Luis Valley’s share of the rebate comes from the co-op’s operating budget. The co-op allocated roughly $48,000

for incentives in both 2008 and 2009.

The Felmlees took advantage of the rebate offered by their co-op. To qualify, the couple was required to get an energy audit, which cost $400. The audit indicated that the Felmlees needed to insulate their floor. They received a rebate of $8,780 for the 2.9 kW system and a rebate of $7,392 for the additional 2.4 kW system. The couple also received a federal tax credit of $2,000 for the 2.9 kW system and will receive $2,400 for the additional 2.4 kW system.

Tembrock received a $6,400 rebate from Xcel Energy, an investor-owned utility that was required by state law to provide incentives to all residential and business customers with renewable electric facilities, regardless of the customer’s utility affiliation. For non-Xcel customers, the rebate was $2.50/watt. Tembrock also received a federal tax credit of $2,000.

Wilkinson received an $8,000 rebate from his cooperative. He also received a federal tax credit of $2,000.

Finding an installer. The installer visited Marsha Felmlee and her husband on a marketing visit and the couple listened to him talk about his work.

Tembrock installed his system himself. He researched the modules and inverters on the market, assessing the cost and the manufacturers’ track records. He said he used three criteria in making his selection: efficiency, flexibility, and the warranty.

Wilkinson found his installer “by trial and error.” After contacting several companies that were not responsive, he saw a combined PV-wind installation at a home in the area and asked who had installed it.

Interaction with the cooperative. Marsha Felmlee said the co-op was very suppor tive. “Dave Mixa was very excited about our system,” she added.




John Tembrock said that co-op staff had to make several visits to his house to get the right meter installed. As a result, he was not charged for the meter. “They were very accommodating,” said Tembrock.

Gary Wilkinson said he had a lot of contact with Dave Mixa, who was very suppor tive. When the rebate level changed from one year to the next, Mixa “went to bat for us and obtained the higher level of the two rebates,” said Wilkinson.


Interconnection agreement. San Luis Valley REC has a standard interconnection agreement that members with small power production facilities are required to sign. The agreement applies to systems that do not exceed 25 kW. In addition, the applicant must show proof of insurance upon request.

Net metering policy. Colorado passed legislation in 2008 extending the state’s net metering requirement to municipal utilities and rural electric cooperatives. Under San Luis Valley REC’s net metering policy, if the energy used by the member is less than the energy generated at the end of any normal monthly billing cycle, the member receives a credit for the excess electricity at the

avoided cost. Members can “bank” the credit and apply it to subsequent months, for up to a year. The cycle begins in April.


Member-consumer perspective. The Felmlees are “very satisfied” with the performance of their PV system. John Tembrock said his system has worked well, delivering the amount of power expected with no glitches. Carl Wilkinson’s PV system is outperforming its rated power, in part because the couple lives in an area with one of the best solar resources in the state, he said.

Cooperative perspective. San Luis Valley REC has 13 member-consumers with installed PV systems. Another four applications are pending. David Mixa said the rebate system is star ting to cost more, but the co-op does receive a small amount of power from the installed systems. “If we had 1,300 PV systems instead of 13, there would be a great benefit in terms of the

power sent back to the grid,” said Mixa.

The major benefit, however, lies in public relations. In the past, co-ops sometimes have had a poor renewable energy image, said Mixa. The San Luis Valley program projects a better image to the community.




Peace River Electric Cooperative (Florida)


Paul Rober ts, Manager of System Planning & Control


James Giesler : 10 kW system, installed in February 2009Diane Harrison and Michael Daniels: 5.63 kW, installed in November 2008


James Giesler decided to install a PV system for several reasons. The first was to gain a measure of independence. In addition, he and his wife wanted to reduce their utility bills and make an investment that would add value to their house. They began by having an energy audit of their house. They carried out several of the recommendations, including attic roof insulation and more efficient air conditioning systems, to improve the house’s overall energy efficiency. The couple has a large house and wanted a PV system to meet at least three-quarters of their electricity needs. Their installer conducted the site assessment and recommended two 5 kW systems.

The two systems are mounted on the south-facing roof. Shade was not an issue. The PV system has a battery backup.

Diane Harrison and her husband, Michael Daniels, decided to install a PV system to reduce their electricity costs. They conducted research on the Internet to evaluate the suitability of their site. Shade was not an issue. The couple also compared the costs and features of different types of modules.

Harrison and Daniels’ system is roof-mounted, with adjustable mounting racks. The system has a battery backup.

Zoning, permitting. The installers for the Gieslers and for Harrison and Daniels obtained building permits. In addition, Harrison and Daniels applied to their homeowners’ association for approval, which they received.

Project economics, output, and cost. The Gieslers calculated the payback for their PV system at 20 years. The installed cost of their PV system was $108,000, which included approximately $9,000 for the battery backup.




Harrison said their system’s payback is 4 years, 10 months. The system cost $80,000, including installation.

Neither couple was required to pay any charges to the cooperative.

Incentives. Through 2008, Florida offered a maximum rebate of $20,000 for residential PV systems. Harrison and Daniels received the $20,000 rebate and also took advantage of the federal tax credit of $2,000.

The Gieslers applied in early 2009 for the state’s $20,000 rebate, but were told that funding for the year was exhausted and the couple’s name would be placed on a waiting list. The Gieslers also will take advantage of the federal tax credit, which they estimate will be approximately $32,000.

Finding an installer. The Gieslers conducted a great deal of research to find an installer. They interviewed numerous installers and obtained quotes from each until they found a professional who worked closely with them to design a system that would meet their needs.

Harrison and Daniels searched the Internet to find their installer.

Interaction with the cooperative. Giesler said the cooperative was willing to help, but there was some initial confusion between the co-op and the contractor. Sor ting out some of the agreements took longer than expected, said Giesler.

Harrison said that the co-op was supportive of the couple’s project.


Interconnection agreement. Peace River EC has a standard interconnection agreement that members with PV systems are required to sign. The agreement, which applies to systems that do not exceed 50 kW, requires members to maintain $100,000 of liability insurance. The co-op may require a higher insurance level for systems exceeding 10 kW. The agreement is available at www.preco.coop/documents/PRECOInterconnectionAgreement.pdf. The co-op also provides an Interconnection Checklist at www.preco.coop/documents/PRECOPVInterconnectionChecklist.pdf. The co-op does not charge a fee for interconnection.

Net metering policy. Under a 2008 Florida law, municipal utilities and electric cooperatives are required to develop a net metering program for customer-owned renewable generation by July 2009. In response to this requirement, Peace River EC is developing a net metering rate.







Member-consumer perspective. The Gieslers are satisfied with their PV system. Their utility bills have declined significantly, but they would like to see even lower bills.

Harrison and Daniels are satisfied with the performance of their PV system.

Cooperative perspective. Peace River EC has five member-consumers with installed PV systems. The co-op’s Paul Roberts said that members with PV systems “are happy that we are open to let them interconnect.” He added that those members are interested in seeing how the co-op develops its net metering rate.

Roberts said that the costs associated with PV installation entail the labor and expense of commissioning the interconnection and setting the new meter for a PV installation. Other costs include the members’ use of the co-op’s line to send excess power to the grid.

It is possible that Peace River EC may benefit from member PV systems through voltage support and available capacity increase in the area around the interconnection during periods of high demand in the summer, said Roberts. Both the co-op and its G&T, Seminole Electric Cooperative, can use the connected systems as a small portion of a renewable generation mix.




Egyptian Electric Cooperative Association (Illinois)


Bryce Cramer, District Office and Member Services Manager


Kevin Gar the: 7.3 kW (5.3 kW, installed June 2008; 2 kW, installed July 2009)


Kevin Gar the decided to install a PV system because it is a sustainable source of energy. He said his personal goal is to be carbon negative.

Garthe has steadily reduced his energy use and will continue to do so. He wanted a PV system to meet all of his electricity needs. Garthe and his installer evaluated his site using a site analysis tool. Shade was not an issue. The PV system is ground mounted, with three passive tracking devices. Maintenance for the tracking devices consists of greasing four times a year. The system has no battery backup.

Zoning, permitting. Garthe was not required to obtain a permit for his PV system.

Project economics, output, and cost. Garthe said the payback is not important. He estimated that the system will star t paying for itself in five years. Garthe researched various panels to identify those that were the most efficient. He sought a balance between efficiency and cost. The installed cost of the initial 5.3 kW system was $38,000, of which installation was $2,500.

Garthe’s 5.3 kW system met 100% of his electricity needs. With the addition of 2 kW, the 7.3 kW system would have met 140–150% of electricity use. However, the couple also has two plug-in hybrid vehicles.

Incentives. Garthe obtained a $10,000 rebate from the state of Illinois. The state rebates expired on May 1, 2009. In addition, Garthe took advantage of the federal tax credit of $2,000.

Finding an installer. Gar the said he has known his installer for years.




Interaction with the cooperative. Garthe said that the co-op was suppor tive, but a fumble or two occurred.


Interconnection agreement. Egyptian EC Association provides information about its intercon-nection policy on its Web site at www.eeca.coop/Interconnection_Policy.html. The intercon-nection agreement applies to residential systems that do not exceed 10 kW. In addition, the applicant must reimburse the cooperative for all interconnection costs, which cannot exceed $500. The usual charge is $150. The cooperative requires applicants to carry a liability

insurance policy of at least $1 million.

Net metering policy. The Egyptian EC Association’s net metering policy mirrors the state’s requirement, said the co-op’s Bryce Cramer. Under the co-op policy, if the energy used by a member at the end of any normal monthly billing cycle is less than the energy generated, the member receives a credit (in kWh). The credit can be used during the annual period chosen by the member, beginning in either April or September. At the end of the annual period, any

remaining credits will expire.


Member-consumer perspective. Gar the is “enormously” satisfied with his PV system. On a sunny day, it can produce 60 kWh, he said.

Cooperative perspective. Egyptian EC has two member-consumers with installed PV systems. Cramer said feedback from the members generally has been good. He acknowledged that the co-op had been new to the process when working with Gar th. “We made a few miscalculations in his billing, and when he told us, we corrected it,” said Cramer.

Although Illinois requires only investor-owned utilities to contribute to its renewable energy trust fund, from which rebates are paid, Egyptian EC voluntarily participates, said Cramer. Rather than imposing a charge on all members’ bills, the co-op began contributing to the fund in 2008, using money from its operating budget. Egyptian EC pays $0.50 per member, for a total of roughly $14,000 annually.

Cramer does not see any real costs associated with the installation of PV systems by members, apart from the staff time.





There are no benefits on the generation side, said Cramer. He dismissed any concerns about extensive generation by co-op members, noting that only a limited number of people will install renewable energy systems. But there is “definitely a PR benefit,” said Cramer. He said the co-op has yet to promote systems like Gar the’s because it wants to ensure that everything is proceeding smoothly before it moves. “When the processes are where they need to be, we’ll promote small renewable generation,” he said.




Kit Carson Electric Cooperative (New Mexico)


Martin Mar tinez, Human Resources/Public Relations Manager


Larry Mapes: 2.6 kW, installed in September 2006


Larry Mapes installed a PV system for two reasons: to offset his electricity bill and to provide a demonstration for his business. Mapes owns a company that installs PV and solar hot water systems and he uses his own system as an educational tool for prospective customers.

Mapes uses Solar Pathfinder to assess customer sites when shade is an issue. His own PV system, which is installed on the building in which he lives and works, was not affected by shade. Because of the architectural constraints of his building, Mapes used skylights with built-in PV for his system. He compensated for less-than-ideal orientation by adding more skylights. His system consists of 26 skylights, with a 100 watt PV panel installed in each. The panels are not adjustable. Mapes has a battery backup because of the system’s unusual configuration and because it increases reliability.

Zoning, permitting. Mapes paid about $200 for a building permit.

Project economics, output, and cost. Mapes said that the return on investment for a PV system is impor tant but added that those who do not like the answer they get should not be discouraged from proceeding. He said people should think in terms of future energy prices. The return on investment period for Mapes’ system is approximately 20 years.

The installed cost of the PV system was $50,000, which included the battery. The high-quality battery backup, which is Y2K surplus, cost roughly $23,000.

Incentives. Mapes received a federal tax credit of $20,000 because the building met cer tain energy standards. He rebuilt and reinsulated the building, which allowed him to use other tax credits as well as the credit for PV systems.




Finding an installer. Professionals in Mapes’ company installed the PV panel-skylights. They already had installed two similar systems in the state.

Interaction with cooperative. Mapes said the cooperative was neutral with respect to his system but was prepared for his project.


Interconnection agreement. Kit Carson EC has a standard interconnection agreement, which applies to systems of 10 kW or less. The co-op requires no liability insurance.

Net metering policy. Under Kit Carson EC’s net metering policy, if the energy used by the member at the end of any normal monthly billing cycle is less than the energy generated, the member receives a credit on the next bill. Unused credits can be carried forward from month to month.


Member-consumer perspective. Mapes said he is satisfied with the performance of his system. He plans to build a house, which also will have a PV system. He will use the same configuration—skylights incorporating PV cells—as that for his office building.

Cooperative perspective. Kit Carson EC has approximately 40 members with installed PV systems, according to Martin Martinez. He said the co-op has received positive responses from everyone. “They think we are proactive with our green initiatives,” said Martinez.

Both the costs and benefits of members’ installed PV systems are minimal, said Mar tinez.




CoServ Electric (Texas)


Jason Cochran, Energy Services Field Technician


Gordon Jones, 5.4 kW, installed in June 2007


Gordon Jones installed a PV system because he wanted to reduce his carbon footprint. In addition, he wanted to reduce his peak demand in the summer, moderate his electricity bill, and reduce his dependence on his utility.

Jones spent more than a year researching PV panels and inverters. He found panels on eBay at a very good price. Although he had to buy 30 panels—more than he wanted at the time—he did so because he and his wife planned to move to a new location where he would have enough land for all of the panels. Jones talked with the president of the company that was selling the panels and was assured of the panels’ quality. He also bought his inverter through an eBay store.

Jones paid for a site survey, and the professional used Solar Pathfinder to assess site suitability. Shade was a major issue, said Jones. His homeowners association would not allow the PV system to be installed in the front yard or on the roof. To install the system in the back yard, Jones cut down two trees, which he regretted having to do. Shade remains an issue before 10 a.m. and after 2 p.m.

Twenty of the panels are mounted in a pergola in the back yard and 10 are mounted on the patio cover. The system has no adjustable mounting racks or tracking, and there is no battery backup.

Zoning, permitting. Jones paid $100 to Double Oak, Texas for a building permit. He also paid $300 to the city for an inspection of the system’s stability. The city requested a second study for which Jones had to pay. In addition, his homeowners association had its own set of requirements. Initially, the association wanted a scale model of the system. Jones had to obtain

signatures from his neighbors giving their approval for the installation, even though they could not see the panels. It took six to eight months to complete all of the paperwork, said Jones.

Project economics, output, and cost. Jones said his wife set up a computer program to track PV system production. Over a year, the system has generated roughly 14% of the couple’s electricity, although one month, output was as high as 35%. The payback period for the system is between 22




and 25 years, said Jones. The system, which Jones installed himself, cost $22,000, including wire, copper, and other materials needed for installation.

Incentives. Jones received a federal tax credit of less than $2,000. No other incentives were available.

Finding an installer. Jones designed and installed his own system.

Interaction with the cooperative. Jones was the co-op’s first customer to install a PV system. He said the co-op personnel who came to his house were excited about the system. When he telephoned or sent e-mails to the co-op, however, it sometimes took a month or two to get a response.


Interconnection agreement. CoServ Electric has a standard interconnection agreement. The co-op requires no liability insurance but does require members to pay for any needed upgrades to electric facilities. For systems 5 kW and smaller, there is no application fee. For systems of 5 kW–100 kW, there is a $25 application fee. Information on the co-op’s interconnection policy is

available at www.coserv.com/Electric/CustomerService/InterconnectingYourOwnPower/tabid/152/Default.aspx. CoServ’s interconnection agreement is modeled on the example provided in NRECA’s DG intercon-nection toolkit.

Net metering policy. Under Texas law, IOUs must offer net metering to their consumers who have renewable energy systems up to 50 kW, but cooperatives are under no obligation to permit net metering. IOU consumers who sell excess electricity to the grid are credited monthly at the avoided cost.

CoServ members with grid-connected renewable generation of 50 kW or less can elect to have net metering or be paid the avoided wholesale energy cost for all output. If the member chooses net metering, the cooperative allows excess electricity production to be “banked” during the current billing period, but production cannot be carried over to the next billing period.

http://www.coserv.com/Electric/CustomerService/InterconnectingYourOwnPower/tabid/152/Default.aspx





Member-consumer perspective. Jones said he is “not disappointed” with his system, but the reality of the impact of shade on the system’s performance did not strike him for awhile.

Jones and his wife are moving to a new house in 2009 and will take the PV system with them. The system will be ground-mounted and will face due south. Jones plans to build two tracking

devices, which would cost $7,000 each if he were to buy them. He also is buying a larger inver ter, which will cost $4,000. At his new location, Jones will still be in CoServ’s service area.

Cooperative perspective. CoServ Electric has five members with installed PV systems, according to Jason Cochran. He said the co-op provides information—including an estimated return on investment and technical assistance—to members who want to install a PV system.

Because of the relatively small output of most interconnected PV and wind systems, the benefit to the co-op lies in allowing members to interconnect these systems, said Cochran. “We see very little actual benefit from the generation.” The costs are very small as well, he added. Most members produce about 200–300 kWh a month, said Cochran, “So we really don’t see a lot of ‘missed costs.’ ”




Washington Electric Cooperative (Vermont)


Bill Powell, Director, Products & Services


Abigail Faulkner and Hobar t Guion, 1.5 kW, installed in October 2000Sari Wolf, 2.28 kW, installed in June 2006


Abigail Faulkner and Hobar t Guion had been considering the installation of a PV system for some time. The impetus for action came when they won a Washington EC lottery and received a 100 watt PV with a micro-inver ter. The couple decided to make their win meaningful by buying additional panels, also with micro-inver ters. Their goal was to meet half of their electricity use with the system.

Faulkner and Guion identified the best location for the system. It faces directly south, for maximum solar gain. There is no shade during peak solar hours. The system, consisting of 15 panels, is mounted on the roof of a small building on the proper ty. There are no adjustable mounting racks and no battery backup.

Sari Wolf installed a PV system because she believes renewable energy is the right way to produce electricity. In addition, she said that power fed into the grid from distributed power generation can help to reduce loads. Wolf ’s brother, James Eniti, calculated that she could afford a system that would meet between one-quar ter and one-third of her electricity needs.

Wolf ’s installer used Solar Pathfinder to assess site suitability. The PV pole-mounted system is south facing, near an open field. An old ash tree shades the panels in the summer until 10 a.m., but Wolf is unwilling to cut down the tree. Her system, mounted on an 8-foot pole, has a dual-axis tracker and battery backup. The system’s two inver ters are sized to suppor t all of the house’s power needs, which would allow for future addition of panels. Wolf ’s brother helped her find high-efficiency panels and a pair of inver ters. He developed a checklist of desirable features, which narrowed down the list of manufacturers to one company for each component.

Zoning, permitting. The state’s regulator, the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) requires that utility customers obtain a Certificate of Public Good to net meter. Faulkner and Guion had to obtain a permit for the building that houses some of the system’s equipment. They reported no




difficulties in obtaining the certificate. Under Vermont law, the utility has no interconnection requirements for net metering for systems of less than 250 kW; all applications are submitted directly to the PSB.

Wolf said that the PSB “went out of its way” to make the application process difficult, delaying the approval. She was required to inform the owner of an adjacent farm about her plans; the owner had 30 days to complain to the PSB. Wolf emphasized that the farmer had not complained about the proposed PV system. After several months of delay, Wolf received approval.

Project economics, output, and cost. When their system was first installed, Faulkner and Guion calculated a payback of 22–24 years. The installed cost of their system was $13,900, of which $660 was the cost of installation. The PV system produces 5 kWh a day, on average.

Wolf was not concerned about the system’s payback. Her installed system cost near ly $30,000, of which $3,000 was the installation cost. A system of the same size—but without high-performance panels, a tracking device, and batter y backup—likely would cost $10,000 less, according to Wolf ’s installer.

Incentives. At the time Faulkner and Guion installed their system, no incentives were available. With the help of her installer, Wolf received a state grant of $4,560. In addition, she received a federal tax credit of $2,000.

Finding an installer. Faulkner and Guion said their installer was a local professional who had years of experience with PV systems.

Wolf ’s brother checked the list of certified installers in her area and also asked Home Power magazine for information. The co-op’s Bill Powell gave Wolf the name of a local installer, whom she used.

Interaction with the cooperative. Faulkner and Guion said the cooperative was very suppor tive. The Vermont legislature was considering a measure on net metering at the time the couple’s system was installed, and there were some questions about how the co-op’s net metering system would work, said Guion.

Wolf said that the co-op’s Bill Powell was very helpful, providing a great deal of information and recommending the installer that she used.

Wolf checked her system’s output for the first few months and found a discrepancy between




what she was producing and the electricity for which she was billed by the co-op. When she asked about this, the co-op found that the wrong meter had been installed. While the meter accounted for Wolf ’s usage, it did not record the power fed back to the grid. The co-op replaced the meter and paid Wolf the full retail value of the energy produced but not accounted for by the first meter, said Powell. He noted that Wolf ’s case was the first in which the co-op discovered that a meter with a bi-directional rotor did not have a bi-directional register as well. The co-op’s current policy is to field verify that a new Cer tificate of Public Good meter is able to operate in both directions.


Interconnection agreement. In Vermont, cooperatives are regulated in the same way as investor-owned and municipal utilities. Washington EC follows the state interconnection standards for DG. The interconnection application and net metering technical specifications are available at www.state.vt.us/psb/application_forms/application_forms.stm.

Because a net metering application includes a requirement that the installation be covered by the member’s household liability insurance policy, Washington EC accepts the liability coverage included in a member’s policy, said the co-op’s Bill Powell. Under the state’s net metering statute, a visible lockable disconnect is required, unless waived by the utility. Powell noted that, to date, no utility has waived this specification.

Net metering policy. Under Vermont law, utility consumers may net meter after obtaining a Cer tificate of Public Good. Faulkner and Guion obtained such a cer tificate, as did Wolf. Net metering is limited to 250 kW for farms and residential consumers. Powell said that, under a 2008 modification, another category—group net metering—allows multiple separate meters

served by the same utility to join a “group” for the purpose of investing in, and sharing, the net excess generation created by the net metering system, said Powell.

As stipulated by Vermont statute, Washington EC provides a single meter that runs backward when the member is sending electricity to the grid. Powell said that the cooperative manually overrides its billing system to account for the electricity sent to the cooperative. He added that, under Vermont law, the member’s credit can be accumulated for a calendar year. A software modification used by the co-op’s billing supplier allows the input of net excess generation into the system without manual processing.







Member-consumer perspective. Faulkner and Guion encountered major problems with their initial system. The micro-inverters on the panels began to fail, and the couple’s electricity bills rose significantly. In 2006, the installer removed all of the micro-inverters and replaced them with a single inverter. After that, four of the panels began to delaminate. The manufacturer replaced the

panels, with Faulkner and Guion picking up the labor cost. As other panels started delaminating, the manufacturer at first was reluctant to replace them, said Guion. Ultimately, however, because of the poor performance, the other panels were replaced. “We wanted the company to live up to its warranties, and it did deliver,” said Guion. The system is now producing as much electricity as the couple expected.

Wolf ’s tracking device, made by a company in Arizona, did not work properly during the winter. The tracker’s motor—which had not been tested in cold weather conditions—seized up when the temperature fell. Wolf ’s installer contacted the company, which sent upgrades for the motors and controllers. When the tracking device still did not work during cold weather, the installer went back to the company, which sent him a completely new unit. The company now offers a cold-weather package, with its tracking devices at an additional charge.

Wolf ’s installer said that, for two reasons, he does not recommend tracking devices in this geographic area. First, the advantage of tracking is not as useful in nor thern states as it is in the Southwest, because of shor ter days. Second, the moving par ts can lock up when temperatures fall to -30º F.

Cooperative perspective. Washington EC has roughly 45 member-consumers with installed net metering, of which 40 are PV systems. Bill Powell said the co-op has favorable relationships with the members who have PV systems. Most probably would say that the co-op has been helpful, he added.

Powell says members’ distributed generation offers a greater benefit if the co-op has transmission or distribution constraints. He identifies two benefits: DG adds to reliability and voltage stability, and it can add value and “stickiness” to the co-op’s relationship with its members. “If we weren’t an advocate for renewable generation at the customer’s site, we would get bad press,” said Powell.

According to Powell, under changes to the state’s 2009 net metering law being considered by the PSB in a rule-making, the output of some renewable energy systems will be paid a fixed rate per kWh (known as a feed-in tariff, or FIT) for up to 20 years. The Vermont FIT would radically affect any payback analysis, said Powell, while still allowing smaller net metering applications to continue under the existing structure (which offers no payment for net excess generation).

Finally, Powell noted that he had received no complaints from any member-consumers about the time required for PSB to issue a Cer tificate of Public Good for a PV installation.


S e c t i o n 4 : F r e q u e n t l y A s k e d Q u e s t i o n s 5 3 o f 7 2

Frequently Asked QuestionsS E C T I O N 4

Frequently Asked QuestionsThe CRN asked the cooperatives profiled in the case studies what their members wanted to know about PV systems. The following questions were mentioned most often by the cooperatives. We have provided suggested responses. For use in customer information handouts, you may want to customize these answers to match your cooperative’s requirements and circumstances more closely.

How much does a PV system cost?

There are three aspects of cost, namely, the cost of: (1) the PV panels (also known as modules); (2) the balance of the plant (the inverter, installation); and (3) interconnection (including any required engineering studies to ensure that the PV system can be integrated with the grid without impacting the quality or reliability of service to neighboring cooperative consumers).

PV systems are rated in kilowatts of DC generating capacity (kWdc), and tend to range in size from less than 1 kW to 10 kW. The average cost of an installed residential PV system typically ranges from $8/watt to $10/watt, depending on the size of the system, the region of the country, and the size and maturity of the PV market in that region. However, a recent study by DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory identified a range of $7.60/watt to $10.80/watt. An average 2 kW system is likely to cost between $16,000 and $20,000. As a rule of thumb, the larger the system, the lower the per watt cost.

Your cooperative can suggest some online cost calculators that will help you to estimate the cost of a PV system.

(Note to cooperatives: The links to these calculators are provided as part of this guide. See Step #6 in “Ten Steps to a PV System” in Section 6.)

Are any incentives available for PV systems?

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 includes a residential solar investment tax credit provision. The provision extends the 30% investment tax credit (ITC) for residential solar proper ty for eight years, through December 31, 2016. The provision also removes the cap on qualified solar electric proper ty expenditures (which previously was $2,000) for a system placed in service after December 31, 2008.

Several states offer incentives that help reduce the installed cost of a PV system. Among them are California, Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The types of




incentives available include personal tax, sales tax, proper ty tax, rebates, and loans. The Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE) provides detailed state-by-state information on incentives at www.dsireusa.org. In addition, a summary of solar incentives and rebates, by state, is available at www.solar-estimate.org/index.php?verifycookie=1&page=solar-incentives&subpage=.

A note of caution: some incentives may be taxable. Consult your tax advisor to find out which incentives currently are treated as taxable income.

(Note to cooperatives: If you offer your member-consumers any kind of incentive for a PV system, provide that information here.)

How much electricity can I generate?

You should first determine how much electricity you want to generate. Based on your current electricity usage, decide how many kilowatt-hours you would like your PV system to generate. Once you know how much energy you want your system to produce, a qualified installer can help you to select a PV size that comes closes to meeting your needs. PV system cost is likely to be a critical factor in this decision.

The amount of electricity generated depends on several factors. The solar resource on your site is a key factor in estimating your energy output. A shade-free solar window from 9 am to 3 pm—the hours when the majority of solar radiation is available—is needed for maximum system output. Output also depends on the tilt angle of the panels and whether the system has a tracking device.

To calculate the annual output of a PV system, go to the Web site provided by Energy Matters—www.solar-estimate.org. You then can use NREL’s PVWatts—www.pvwatts.org/—to verify the results from solar-estimate.org.

PV system output varies significantly by region. A 4 kW system in Tucson, Arizona, for example, is likely to produce an annual average of 7,697 kWh, while the same size system in Seattle, Washington, is likely to produce an annual average of 4,391 kWh.

Does the cooperative buy any extra power that I generate? What am I going to be paid? What is net metering? What is avoided cost?

All cooperatives will buy the excess electricity produced by member-consumers from small renewable generators. Your cooperative will buy your excess electricity at a fair rate, which also ensures that other member-consumers on the system do not bear an undue cost for their electricity. Some co-ops


http://www.dps.state.ny.us/08E1018/SIRDevices.pdf



http://www.solarabcs.org/





buy the excess generation every month. Others allow member-consumers to “bank” excess electricity over the course of a yearly billing cycle.

(Note to cooperatives: Personalize this response by providing information on the rate that you pay member-consumers for their excess electricity.)

Net metering is one tool for valuing and measuring the electricity generated and used by a utility consumer who has a distributed generation (DG) system, such as a PV system. Under net metering, when a consumer uses electricity supplied by the cooperative, the electricity meter moves forward. When the consumer’s PV system produces more electricity than the consumer needs at a par ticular time, the excess is fed back into the grid, and the meter registers backwards. The consumer exchanges the power used one-for-one with the power expor ted and so is credited at the full retail rate for any excess energy produced.

Some states have adopted net metering because it provides a simple, easily administered way of compensating consumers for their generation, par ticularly where the customer is unsophisticated, the unit is small, and the output of the unit cannot closely track the customer’s demand, as with solar and wind energy. Others have adopted net metering to subsidize the use of environmentally friendly renewable technologies. A repor t on state net metering practices and possibilities is available from IREC at www.irecusa.org.

Many cooperatives have chosen not to net meter consumer-owned generation because it is a subsidy that can raise costs for other consumers on the system. Net metering policies require utilities to pay consumers the retail price for wholesale power. Cooperatives that do not offer net metering will pay customers at a level that reflects the value of the power to the cooperative and its other consumers. Cooperatives also may decline to offer net metering or adopt other charges to ensure that they recover the fixed costs they incur in serving a customer with PV. Your local cooperative can answer any questions you may have about the rates it pays for the power you expor t to the grid.

When co-ops are not required by the state to offer net metering, they often credit a customer’s excess electricity at the “wholesale price” of energy. That is the price that the distribution co-op has to pay for the electricity it buys for sale to its customers. In this case, the amount that the co-op customer is credited for excess electricity is known as the “avoided cost.” The avoided cost is significantly less than the retail rate.




How do I get connected to the cooperative grid? Does this cost anything?

Connecting your PV system to the grid allows you to send excess power to the cooperative as well as buy electricity from the cooperative as needed.

(Note to cooperatives: Insert information on your interconnection requirements and fees. Include information on the terms and conditions of the agreement that a member-consumer must sign. You may want to explain that the cooperative needs to ensure that the member-consumer’s PV system meets all electrical codes, is synchronized with the grid, and matches the power’s voltage frequency and quality, and that cooperative personnel need access to an unlocked AC disconnect so the PV system can be isolated from the grid in the event of a power outage.)

What, if any, permits and inspections are required to operate a PV system?

You may need to obtain a building permit to install a PV system. Building and electrical codes apply. Contact your local building depar tment or ask your PV installer to include the cost of permits in the cost estimate.

After your PV system is installed, it may need to be inspected and approved by the local permitting agency (usually a building or electrical inspector) and your cooperative. Inspectors may require your installer to make corrections. A copy of the building permit showing the final inspection sign-off may be required to qualify for a solar rebate program.

Fees for building permits for PV systems can range from $200 to $500. If a fee seems inappropriate or excessive, you may be able to get it reduced or waived. Find out what you are being charged for and offer to provide documentation or information that may make the fee unnecessary.

Local zoning laws may restrict where you can place PV panels on your home. Check with you city or county to find out about any restrictions.

(Note to cooperatives: If you are aware of local permitting requirements, insert this information.)




What kind of payback can I expect in terms of breaking even?

Your cooperative can provide a capital cost recovery analysis worksheet that you can use to calculate the annual operating cost of your PV system. The payback period for a PV system can range from fewer than 10 to more than 20 years, depending on the cost of the system, available rebates and incentives, the amount of electricity produced, and the retail price of electricity that you buy from your co-op.

You also can calculate the simple payback of a PV system using the following formula:

Total of Life Cycle Costs (capital costs + finance costs + O&M costs - federal and state incentives) / Average Value of Energy Generated per Year (kWh generated * cost of power).

In addition, an online calculator is available at www.solar-estimate.org.

How reliable are PV systems? What is the life expectancy of a PV system? What kind of maintenance is required?

Cer tified PV products and systems generally are reliable. Manufacturers test PV panels for hail impact, high wind, and freeze-thaw cycles that represent year-round weather conditions. Unless your PV system uses a tracking device, it has no moving par ts.

Many manufacturers offer 25-year warranties for their PV panels, and most offer at least a 20-year warranty. Inver ters, with capacities specified in kVA, usually have warranties of between five and 10 years, with extended warranties of 15 to 20 years available at an extra cost. Some PV rebate programs are required to carry a full two-year warranty in addition to any manufacturers’ warranties on specific components. This warranty should cover all par ts and labor, including the cost of removing any defective component, shipping it to the manufacturer, and reinstalling the component after it is repaired or replaced.

PV panels have a life expectancy of about 30 years. However, the power rating of PV modules tends to degrade slowly over time, due to such factors as higher temperatures and the aging of materials. For crystalline silicon panels, the loss in power ranges from 0.2% to 0.7% a year, with a typical loss of 5.5% over the life of the panel. Inver ters have a life expectancy of approximately 15 years, but in some cases, they must be repaired or replaced sooner.

The PV modules require little maintenance. If regular rainfall is not sufficient to eliminate accumulated dir t, customers occasionally can rinse the modules off with water. In some conditions, for example,

http://www.ssvec.org/documents/SunWatts/10_08Section1InterconnectUpdatedMar08.pdf




in deser t regions, dust accumulation can impact performance. Exper ts suggest periodic maintenance checks of system components and completion of any preventive maintenance as needed. Talk with your system installer about routine and periodic maintenance.

The inver ter requires maintenance far more frequently than the modules. Exper ts recommend that you monitor the inver ter’s status indicators and notify the installer if the inver ter needs service.

Where can I find out more about PV systems and where to buy them?

(Note to cooperatives: Include any resources here that you want to recommend.)

Sources of information on PV systems include:

Own Your Power! A Consumer’s Guide to Solar Electricity for the Home, issued by DOE’s EERE, available at www.nrel.gov/learning/pdfs/43844.pdf.

DOE’s Making the Most of Residential Photovoltaic Systems, available at www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/750928-WneOPp/webviewable/750928.pdf.

DOE’s Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Web site provides information on PV systems, available at www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/photovoltaics.html; and www.energysavers.gov/your_home/electricity/index.cfm/mytopic=10710.

E Source’s A Homeowner’s Guide to Solar Electric Systems is available at http://www.dixieec.com/uploadedFiles/Publications/AHomeownersGuidetoSolarElectricSystems.pdf.

Home Power magazine’s ar ticle “Solar-Electric Systems Simplified” is available at www.homepower.com/view/?file=HP104_pg72_Russell.

Regional organizations, such as the Midwest Renewable Energy Association (MREA) (www.the-mrea.org) may be able to help. The Florida Solar Energy Center also is a resource, available at www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/solar_electricity/basics/. The Solar Energy Industries Association provides a state-by-state listing of solar organizations, as well as manufacturers and installers; available at www.seia.org/cs/state_fact_sheets. Renewable energy fairs are another source of information. You can search the Internet for fairs in your area. You also can ask your state’s renewable energy organization or energy office. DOE’s EERE Web site provides contact information for state energy offices at www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/seo_contacts.cfm.

http://www.irecusa.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ConnectDocs/IC_Guide.pdf<200A>



http://www.dsireusa.org

http://www.homepower.com/view/?file=HP104_pg72_Russell

https://crn.cooperative.com/Results/items/2003/CRNResult_03-15.htm



http://www.seia.org/cs/state_fact_sheets

http://www.seia.org/cs/state_fact_sheets




S e c t i o n 5 : P V S y s t e m M a n u f a c t u r e r s & I n s t a l l e r s 5 9 o f 7 2

PV System Manufacturers & InstallersS E C T I O N 5

PV System Manufacturers and InstallersManufacturers

Information on PV system manufacturers may be helpful to cooperative member-consumers. In addition, this section includes general information on installers and questions that co-op member-consumers should ask them.

There are more than two dozen manufacturers of PV panels. The companies listed below make panels that have a rated output of 100 watts or higher at standard test conditions, have a minimum power output warranty of 20 years, and are sold in the United States.

Advent Solar www.adventsolar.com

BP Solar www.bpsolar.com

Canadian Solar Inc. www.csisolar.com

Day4 Energy Inc. www.day4energy.com

ET Solar Group www.etsolar.com

Evergreen Solar www.evergreensolar.com

Kyocera www.kyocerasolar.com

Mitsubishi Electric www.mitsubishielectricsolar.com

REC Solar www.recgroup.com

Sanyo www.sanyo.com

Schott Solar www.us.schott.com

Schüco www.schueco.com

Sharp www.sharpusa.com

SolarWorld www.solarworld-usa.com

SunPower Corp. www.sunpowercorp.com

Suntech Power www.suntech-power.com

Trina Solar www.trinasolar.com

Uni-Solar www.uni-solar.com

XC3 International www.xc3i.com

Yingli Solar www.yinglisolar.com




PV inver ters vary in terms of peak conversion efficiency, PV voltage range, performance at elevated temperatures, and cost. Among the major inver ter manufacturers are:

Fronius www.fronius.com

Magnetek www.alternative-energies.com

Outback Power System www.outbackpower.com

PV Powered www.pvpowered.com

Sharp www.sharp-usa.com

SMA www.sma-america.com

Xantrex www.xantrex.com

Enphase Micro-Inver ter www.enphaseenergy.com makes small inver ters designed to be attached to each panel in a PV array.

NRECA does not endorse any specific products or systems. Consumers may wish to begin the search for a manufacturer by contacting their state solar association.

PV Installers

As a general rule, consumers contract with an installer for a PV system rather than buying PV components—panels, inverters, battery backup—separately from manufacturers or dealers.

Using a professional, licensed PV installer is the best way for consumers to avoid installation problems with their system. A qualified, experienced installer will design a system—or suggest a packaged system—that meets the consumer’s needs and site conditions. An installer also can help the consumer with the paperwork for tax credits and rebates.

Some states link installation requirements to incentives. Consumers should check the DSIRE database for the requirements in their state, available at www.dsireusa.org/solar/index.cfm?ee=1&re=1&spv=1&st=0.

Consumers should begin the process of selecting an installer by conducting research to determine the general PV system requirements that will meet their needs, such as desired output, available area for installation, and type of mounting. Tips on finding an installer are provided in “Ten Steps to a PV System,” included in the consumer handout section of this guide (Section 6).




Once consumers have a shor t list of installers, they should contact at least two for quotes for the equipment and installation. Among the issues to bear in mind when comparing quotes: be sure all bids are made on the same basis, e.g., a roof-mounted system; all bids should clearly state the maximum generating capacity of the system (in watts or kW, DC STC). A PV system produces DC power, which is conver ted to AC power by the inver ter. The performance of PV cells and modules are measured under Standard Test Conditions (STC). These conditions include a reference temperature of 25°C (77°F) and irradiance of 1,000 watts/m2. All bids should include the estimated amount of electricity the system will produce annually and should clearly state costs, warranties and required permits, and electrical inspections.


S e c t i o n 6 : C o n s u m e r H a n d o u t P a c k e t 6 2 o f 7 2

Consumer Handout PacketS E C T I O N 6

Consumer Handout PacketThe Consumer Handout Packet is intended to help cooperative staff develop and assemble the documents needed to help member-consumers interested in PV. The packet of information that you prepare for member-consumers should include a letter from your cooperative. The letter provided can serve as a guide for your own. You should adapt it, and any other element of the Consumer Handout Packet, to reflect your cooperative’s needs and those of your member-consumers.

In addition, the Frequently Asked Questions and Vendor List, provided in this guide, should be par t of the consumer handout packet. You may want to include some or all of the information in the PV Basics section of this guide. Additional documents—Capital Cost Recovery Analysis Worksheet, 10 Steps to a Pv System, and Questions To Ask Installers—are provided in this guide.

The Consumer Handout Packet is available for download on the CRN website at: https://www.cooperative.com/about/NRECA/CRN/Results/Pages/ResidenialPVGuide.aspx

https://www.cooperative.com/about/NRECA/CRN/Results/Pages/ResidenialPVGuide.aspx


S e c t i o n 7 : R e s o u r c e s & A c r o n y m s 6 3 o f 7 2

Resources & AcronymsS E C T I O N 7

Resources and AcronymsAcronymsAC alternating current MVA megavolt amperesCIGS copper indium gallium diselenide NABCEP North American Board of Cer tified

Energy PractitionersCRN Cooperative Research Network NRECA National Rural Electric Cooperative

AssociationDC direct current NREL (DOE) National Renewable Energy

LaboratoryDG distributed generation PPA power purchase agreementEERE (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy Web sitePSB Public Service Board

EGIA Electric & Gas Industries Association PURPA Public Utilities Regulatory Policy ActFAQ frequently asked questions PV photovoltaicsFERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission QF qualifying facilityFIT feed-in tariff REC rural electric cooperativeIAEC Iowa Association of Electric

CooperativesRUS Rural Utilities Service

IDR Interconnection of Distributed Resources

SEIA Solar Energy Industries Association

IOU investor-owned utility SEPA Solar Electric Power AssociationIREC Interstate Renewable Energy Council Solar

ABCsSolar America Board for Codes and Standards

ITC investment tax credit STC Standard Test ConditionskW kilowatt T&D transmission and distributionMREA Midwest Renewable Energy Association UL Underwriters Laboratories




Resources: Web Sites and Repor tsAmerican Solar Energy Societywww.findsolar.com/

Application guidelineshttps://www.cooperative.com/about/NRECA/CRN/Results/Pages/TheImpactsofDGWindGenerationon.aspx

Area neededwww.energysavers.gov/your_home/electricity/index.cfm/mytopic=10840

Business models*Utility Solar Business Models: Emerging Utility Strategies & Innovation, www.solarelectricpower.org/media/84333/sepa%20usbm%201.pdf

Calculatorswww.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/ www.findsolar.com www.pvwatts.org www.solar-estimate.org

For electricity usage: www.thesolarenergycompany.com/images/sizingPV/SizingChart.pdf

California Energy Commissionwww.gosolarcalifornia.org/equipment/inverter.php

Consumer guide to solar energy*Consumer’s Guide to Solar Electricity for the Home, available at:www.nrel.gov/learning/pdfs/43844.pdf www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/photovoltaics.html

*A Homeowner’s Guide to Solar Electric Systems, available at: http://www.dixieec.com/uploadedFiles/Publications/AHomeownersGuidetoSolarElectricSystems.pdf

*Making the Most of Residential Photovoltaic Systems, available at:www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/750928-WneOPp/webviewable/750928.pdf

Cooperative Research NetworkInterconnection process/flowchar t:www.cooperative.com/general/resources/ConsumerKit/ ConsumerOwnedKit.htm

Costs *Tracking the Sun: The Installed Cost of Photovoltaics in the U.S. from 1998-2007, available at: www.eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/lbnl-1516e.pdf




Cost savingswww.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/www.findsolar.comwww.solar-estimate.org

*Developing Rates for Distributed Generation, available at: www.nreca.org/Documents/PublicPolicy/DGRatesManual.pdf

Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE)www.dsireusa.org

Distributed generationNRECA’s DG Interconnection Toolkit, available at: www.cooperative.com/general/resources/DistributedGeneration/DistributedGeneration.htm

*Developing Rates for Distributed Generation, available at: www.nreca.org/Documents/PublicPolicy/DGRatesManual.pdf

*White Paper on Distributed Generation and Issues Report, available at: www.nreca.org/Documents/PublicPolicy/DGWhitepaper.pdf

DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Web site www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/seo_contacts.cfm

Electricity usagewww.thesolarenergycompany.com/images/sizingPV/SizingChart.pdf

Energy efficiency www.energysavers.gov/your_home/electricity/index.cfm/mytopic=10710 www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/seo_contacts.cfm

Energy Matters Web site, available at: www.solar-estimate.org

Energy production www.solar-estimate.org

Energy production calculator :www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/

Financing *Solar Photovoltaic Financing: Residential Sector Deployment, available at: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/44853.pdf

*Solar Leasing for Residential Photovoltaic Systems, available at:www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/43572.pdf




Florida Solar Energy Centerwww.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/solar_electricity/basics/

Home Energy Saver Web site, available at: www.hes.lbl.gov

Homeowners’ guides *A Homeowner’s Guide to Solar Electric Systems, available at: http://www.dixieec.com/uploadedFiles/Publications/AHomeownersGuidetoSolarElectricSystems.pdf

IEEE standards www.grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc21/1547.2_index.html

Incentiveswww.dsireusa.org www.solar-estimate.org/index.php?verifycookie=1&page=solar-incentives&subpage=

Installerswww.findsolar.comwww.homepower.com/view/?file=HP116_pg102_IPP www.solar-estimate.org/index.php?verifycookie=1&page=solar-installer&subpage= www.nabcep.org

Installers by state: www.seia.org/cs/state_fact_sheets

Interconnectionwww.ssvec.org/documents/SunWatts/10_08Section1InterconnectUpdatedMar08.pdf www.irecusa.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ConnectDocs/IC_Guide.pdf www.cooperative.com/general/resources/ConsumerKit/ConsumerOwnedKit.htm

Examples of interconnection agreements: www.ssvec.org/documents/SunWatts/10_08Section1InterconnectUpdatedMar08.pdf www.preco.coop/documents/PRECOInterconnectionAgreement.pdf www.eeca.coop/Interconnection_Policy.html www.coserv.com/Electric/CustomerService/InterconnectingYourOwnPower/tabid/152/Default.aspx www.state.vt.us/psb/application_forms/application_forms.stm

Interconnection checklist: www.preco.coop/documents/PRECOPVInterconnectionChecklist.pdf

Interconnection standards: www.grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc21/1547.2_index.html

NRECA’s DG Interconnection Toolkit, available at: www.cooperative.com/general/resources/DistributedGeneration/DistributedGeneration.htm




Interstate Renewable Energy Councilwww.irecusa.org

Inverterswww.gosolarcalifornia.org/equipment/inverter.php www.consumerenergycenter.org/erprebate/documents/2005_tax_credit/2006-03-02_APPR_INVERT_LIST.PDF www.dps.state.ny.us/08E1018/SIRDevices.pdf

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory *Tracking the Sun: The Installed Cost of Photovoltaics in the U.S. from 1998-2007, available at: www.eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/lbnl-1516e.pdf

Leasing *Solar Leasing for Residential Photovoltaic Systems, available at:www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/43572.pdf

*Making the Most of Residential Photovoltaic Systems, available at:www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/750928-WneOPp/webviewable/750928.pdf.

Manufacturers of PV productsBy state: www.seia.org/cs/state_fact_sheets

Manufacturers of PV invertersFronius: www.fronius.com

Magnetek: www.alternative-energies.com

Outback Power System: www.outbackpower.com

PV Powered: www.pvpowered.com

Sharp: www.sharp-usa.com

SMA: www.sma-america.com

Xantrex: www.xantrex.com

Manufacturers of PV panelsAdvent Solar : www.adventsolar.com

BP Solar : www.bpsolar.com

Canadian Solar Inc.: www.csisolar.com

Day4 Energy Inc.: www.day4energy.com

ET Solar Group: www.etsolar.com

Evergreen Solar : www.evergreensolar.com




Kyocera: www.kyocerasolar.com

Mitsubishi Electric: www.mitsubishielectricsolar.com

REC Solar : www.recgroup.com

Sanyo: www.sanyo.com

Schott Solar : www.us.schott.com

Schüco: www.schueco.com

Sharp: www.sharpusa.com

SolarWorld: www.solarworld-usa.com

SunPower Corp.: www.sunpowercorp.com

Suntech Power : www.suntech-power.com

Trina Solar : www.trinasolar.com

Uni-Solar : www.uni-solar.com

XC3 International: www.xc3i.com

Yingli Solar : www.yinglisolar.com

Midwest Renewable Energy Association www.the-mrea.org

Net meteringwww.nreca.org/PublicPolicy/ElectricIndustry/distributedgeneration.htm

Net metering requirements:www.dsireusa.org www.psrec.coop/downloads/netmeterlet123108.pdf

Net metering states: www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/netmetering.shtml www.irecusa.org

Net metering technical specifications:www.state.vt.us/psb/application_forms/application_forms.stm

New Yorkwww.dps.state.ny.us/08E1018/SIRDevices.pdf

NRECADistributed generation: www.cooperative.com/general/resources/DistributedGeneration/DistributedGeneration.htm




*Developing Rates for Distributed Generation, available at:www.nreca.org/Documents/PublicPolicy/DGRatesManual.pdf

*White Paper on Distributed Generation and Issues Report, available at:www.nreca.org/Documents/PublicPolicy/DGWhitepaper.pdf

Net metering: www.nreca.org/PublicPolicy/ElectricIndustry/distributedgeneration.htm

Outputwww.solar-estimate.org

Peak sun hours www.rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/

Photovoltaicswww1.eere.energy.gov/solar/photovoltaics.html

*Making the Most of Residential Photovoltaic Systems, available at:www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/750928-WneOPp/webviewable/750928.pdf www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/photovoltaics.html

PV inverterswww.gosolarcalifornia.org/equipment/inverter.php www.consumerenergycenter.org/erprebate/documents/2005_tax_credit/2006-03-02_APPR_INVERT_LIST.PDF www.nrel.gov/pv/pdfs/38771.pdf www.dps.state.ny.us/08E1018/SIRDevices.pdf

(See also Manufacturers of PV Inverters)

PV systemswww.nrel.gov/learning/pdfs/43844.pdf www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/photovoltaics.html www.dps.state.ny.us/08E1018/SIRDevices.pdfwww.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/solar_electricity/basics www.the-mrea.org

Rates *Developing Rates for Distributed Generation, available at:www.nreca.org/Documents/PublicPolicy/DGRatesManual.pdf

Rebateswww.dsireusa.org www.solar-estimate.org/index.php?verifycookie=1&page=solar-incentives&subpage=




Renewable energy www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/seo_contacts.cfm www.the-mrea.org

Incentives:www.dsireusa.org

Savingswww.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/ www.findsolar.com

Site analysisSolar Pathfinder, at: www.solarpathfinder.com

Solar America Board for Codes and Standards www.solarabcs.org/

Solar electricity for the homewww.nrel.gov/learning/pdfs/43844.pdf

A Homeowner’s Guide to Solar Electric Systems, available at: http://www.dixieec.com/uploadedFiles/Publications/AHomeownersGuidetoSolarElectricSystems.pdf

*Solar-Electric Systems Simplified, available at:www.homepower.com/view/?file=HP104_pg72_Russell

Solar Energy Industries Associationwww.seia.org/cs/about_seia/state_chapters

Solar incentiveswww.solar-estimate.org/index.php?verifycookie=1&page=solar-incentives&subpage=

Solar Pathfinderwww.solarpathfinder.com

StandardsInterconnection: www.grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc21/1547.2_index.html




StatesEnergy offices: www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/seo_contacts.cfm www.the-mrea.org

Incentives:www.dsireusa.org/

Installers and Manufacturers: www.seia.org/cs/state_fact_sheets

Solar organizations and manufacturers:www.seia.org/cs/state_fact_sheets

*Tracking the Sun: The Installed Cost of Photovoltaics in the U.S. from 1998-2007, available at: eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/lbnl-1516e.pdf

*Utility Solar Business Models: Emerging Utility Strategies & Innovation, available at: www.solarelectricpower.org/media/84333/sepa%20usbm%201.pdf

*White Paper on Distributed Generation, available at: www.nreca.org/Documents/PublicPolicy/DGWhitepaper.pdf


L e g a l N o t i c e 7 2 o f 7 2

Legal Notice

Legal NoticeThis work contains findings that are general in nature. Readers are reminded to perform due diligence in applying these findings to their specific needs, as it is not possible for NRECA to have sufficient understanding of any specific situation to ensure applicability of the findings in all cases.

Neither the authors nor NRECA assume liability for how readers may use, interpret, or apply the information, analysis, templates, and guidance herein or with respect to the use of, or damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process contained herein. In addition, the authors and NRECA make no warranty or representation that the use of these contents does not infringe on privately held rights.

This work product constitutes the intellectual proper ty of NRECA and its suppliers, as the case may be, and contains Confidential Information. As such, this work product must be handled in accordance with the CRN Policy Statement on Confidential Information.

C O N TA C T :

Andrew Cotter [email protected]

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), founded in 1942, is the national service organization suppor ting more than 900 electric cooperatives and public power districts in 47 states. Electric cooperatives own and operate more than 42 percent of the distribution lines in the nation and provide power to 40 million people (12 percent of the population).

© Cooperative PV Guide

C O P Y R I G H T © 2 0 0 9 B Y

N AT I O N A L RU R A L E L E C T R I C C O O P E R AT I V E A S S O C I AT I O N .

Reproduction in whole or in par t strictly prohibited without prior written approval of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, except that reasonable por tions may be reproduced or quoted as par t of a review or other story about this publication.