Talk:Net metering/Archives/2014

Net Metering and Avoided Cost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First sentence of intro

The first sentence of the intro reads as follows:

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

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