6 Search Results

Customer concerns over electric system resilience could drive early adoption of behind-the-meter solar-plus-storage (BTM PVESS), especially as wildfire, hurricane, and other climate-driven risks to electric grids become more pronounced. However, the resilience benefits of BTM PVESS are poorly understood, especially for residential customers, owing to lack of data and methodological challenges, making it difficult to forecast adoption trends. In this paper, we develop a methodology to model the performance of BTM PVESS in providing backup power across a wide range of customer types, geography/climate conditions, and long duration power interruption scenarios, considering both whole-building backup and backup of specific criticalmore » loads. We combine novel, disaggregated end-use load profiles across the continental United States with temporally and geospatially aligned solar generation estimates. We then implement a PVESS dispatch algorithm to calculate the amount of load served during interruptions. We find that PVESS with 10 kWh of storage can meet a limited set of critical loads in most United States counties during any month of the year, though this capability drops to meeting only 86% of critical load, averaged across all counties and months, when heating and cooling are considered critical. Backup performance is lowest in winter months where electric heat is common (southeast and northwest U.S.) and in summer months in places with large cooling loads (southwest and southeast U.S.). Winter backup performance varies by roughly 20% depending on infiltration rates, while summer performance varies by close to 15% depending on the efficiency of the central air-conditioning system. Differences in temperature set-points in Harris County correspond to a 40% range in winter backup performance and a 20% range in summer performance. Economic calculations show that a customer's resilience value of PVESS must be high to motivate adoption of these systems.« less

Compensation structures for residential solar are evolving toward a model that incentivizes using battery storage to maximize solar self-consumption. Using metered data from 1,800 residential customers across six U.S. utilities, we show that batteries operated solely in this manner provide customer bill savings up to $20-30 per kWh of storage capacity annually, but virtually no grid value. Relative to market-based dispatch, this value gap remains across customers and will become more severe over time, insofar as increased renewable energy penetration leads to more volatile wholesale prices. This inefficiency primarily stems from residential batteries largely sitting idle on peak days. Wemore » show that incentivizing storage customers to respond to market prices, particularly on peak days, would enhance both private and public value. Unconstrained grid discharging increases exports to distribution networks, but 50-70% of the potential market value could be achieved without materially degrading solar self-consumption levels or increasing local grid stress.« less

Low- and moderate-income (LMI) households remain less likely to adopt rooftop solar photovoltaics (PV) than higher-income households. A transient period of inequitable adoption is common among emerging technologies but stakeholders are calling for an accelerated transition to equitable rooftop PV adoption. To date, researchers have focused on demand-side drivers of PV adoption inequity, but supply-side factors could also play a role. Here, we use quote data to explore whether PV installers implement income-targeted marketing and the extent to which such strategies drive adoption inequity. We find that installers submit fewer quotes to households in low-income areas and those households thatmore » receive fewer quotes are less likely to adopt. The data suggest that income-targeted marketing explains about one-quarter of the difference in PV adoption rates between LMI and higher-income households. Policymakers could explore a broader suite of interventions to address demand- and supply-side drivers of PV adoption inequity.« less

The rapid growth of rooftop solar photovoltaic systems can pose a number of financial challenges for electric utility shareholders and their customers. One potential pathway to resolving these perceived challenges involves allowing utilities to own and operate rooftop solar systems. However, the financial benefits and costs of this business model are not well understood. Here we model the financial performance of a large-scale utility-owned residential rooftop solar programme. Furthermore, over a 20 yr period, the programme increases shareholder earnings by 2–5% relative to a no-solar scenario, compared to a 2% earnings loss when an equivalent amount of rooftop solar ismore » instead owned by non-utility parties. Such a programme could therefore be attractive from the perspective of utility investors. The impacts on utility customers, however, are more mixed, with average bills of non-solar customers increasing by 1–3% compared to the no-solar scenario, similar to the 2% increase under traditional, non-utility-ownership structures.« less

Low- and moderate-income (LMI) households are less likely to adopt rooftop solar photovoltaics (PVs) than higher-income households in the United States. As the existing literature has shown, this dynamic can decelerate rooftop PV deployment and has potential energy justice implications, in light of the cost-shifting between PV and non-PV households that can occur under typical rate structures and incentive programmes. Here we show that some state policy interventions and business models have expanded PV adoption among LMI households. Additionally, we find evidence that LMI-specific financial incentives, PV leasing and property-assessed financing have increased the diffusion of PV adoption among LMImore » households in existing markets and have driven more installations into previously underserved low-income communities. By shifting deployment patterns, we posit that these interventions could catalyse peer effects to increase PV adoption in low-income communities even among households that do not directly benefit from the interventions.« less