THE CASE FOR DISTRIBUTED PHOTOVOLTAIC GENERATION

Distributed electricity generation is an attractive technology. By reducing or eliminating dependence on the national power grid, the consumer may provide for his or her own electricity demand at essentially zero marginal cost, whilst often recouping the initial capital investment associated with setting up the generation system in future electricity savings and in the value of electricity sold to the power grid.

Photovoltaic solar power is the quintessential distributed generation technology. The power produced by a photovoltaic array scales linearly with the area of the system, so as long as the array produces enough rev­enue to compensate for the non-generating sunk cost of the system (the inverter, etc.), a photovoltaic array is a sensible economic choice. The only trait required of a location is open, south-facing space for installation when in the northern hemisphere. They have very low maintenance costs, require little attention from their owner, and have a lifespan of 25 years, commensurate with the time horizon of many home-planning decisions— most mortgages are 15 or 30 years.

Unfortunately, commercially available photovoltaic cells remain very expensive for most residential consumers. The key to making photovoltaic arrays a cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels lies in two economic ma­neuvers on the part of the federal and California state governments.

First, the United States Congress has mandated that a technology and accounting practice called “net metering” be available to all electricity consumers [17]. Under a net metering scheme, any consumer attached to the power grid is given credits for electricity that user produces above his or her own electricity consumption through the use of distributed genera­tion technology. When the consumer is using more electricity than he or she is producing, the electricity is purchased at the normal rate. Then, at the end of the billing period, the credits are subtracted from the bill, and the consumer only owes the utility the difference between the value of the electricity he or she produced and the value of the electricity he or she consumed. Due to net metering, a photovoltaic array allows a consumer to continue to consume electricity, but at a lower price than he or she would purchase that electricity from the local utility company. These savings in future electricity bills add to the value of an installed photovoltaic array.

Second, both federal and state governments provide subsidies for the installation of solar electricity generating systems. The federal govern­ment provides a 30% tax credit, for the value of installed residential and commercial photovoltaic systems [18]. This subsidy discounts the taxes of a property owner who installs a photovoltaic system by 30% of the total price of the installed system; for the purposes of our analysis, this is equivalent to the federal government paying 30% of the cost of the photo­voltaic array, leaving the remaining 70% to be paid for by state subsidies and the property-owner.

In California, the cost of installing a photovoltaic system is $8.20 per watt of generating capacity, the second lowest in the nation [19]. This cost is increased by the only substantial maintenance cost associated with resi­dential photovoltaic systems: the replacement of the inverter. The price of a solar array inverter is 71.90 per watt of generating capacity [20]. Assum­ing 2% inflation and a 7% discount rate per annum, the present value of this replacement is 38.60 per watt. As the price of inverters has been drop­ping over time, this allowance for inverter replacement will also allow for some routine inverter maintenance in addition to the inverter replacement midway through the 25-year span of this analysis. This increases the cost of each installed watt by 390 per watt, bringing the total cost per installed watt of photovoltaic generating capacity to $8.69.

This cost is very high when compared to the cost of grid electricity to residential consumers, at 14.90 per kilowatt hour [21]. Given our predeter­mined assumptions that the array receives five equivalent noontime hours of sun exposure on an average day and has a 25-year lifespan, the lifetime productivity of one watt of photovoltaic generating capability is 45.6 kilo­watt hours. Following our other assumptions of a 7% annual discount rate and a 6.7% increase in the cost of electricity, the present value of those generated watts is $5.92; this is only 68.9% of the initial capital invest­ment required to acquire that one watt of generating capacity. However, after the 30% federal tax credit, the array has paid for itself, leaving a 210 cost to the consumer per installed watt of generating capacity. This means the lump-sum rebate given by the state of California through its Califor­nia Solar Initiative is almost entirely profit for the consumer, leaving the present value of an installed watt of photovoltaic generation capacity as substantially positive.

This analysis is complicated by the way California has structured its rebate. The level of the California Solar Initiative incentive drops as more solar arrays are installed in the state, and these drops are not applied uniformly across the state. The current rebate for residential consumers ranges from $1.10 to $1.90 per watt of installed generating capacity, depending on the consumer’s utility company [22]. This level of subsidy leads to a profit for the consumer of $0.90 to $1.70 per watt of installed solar generating capacity; a 10.4% to 19.7% return on investment. In the future, this rebate is scheduled to drop as low as 200 per watt, but even in this case the present value of each installed watt is almost exactly zero. However, by the time the California Solar Initiatives have reached this low level of subsidy, the technology’s efficiency and cost will likely have improved enough for the photovoltaic array to remain a profitable investment. See Additional Files 2 and 3 for capacity and present-value calculations.

The meaning of these numbers is more readily grasped by considering the case of a typical home. The average Californian residence consumes 580 kilowatt hours of electricity per month, or just under two-thirds the national average. By way of comparison, the average American residence consumes 936 kWh of electricity monthly [23]. At 14.90 per kilowatt hour, the annual electricity bill of the average Californian residence is $1037.04. In order to meet fully the annual electricity needs of such a home, it would need a photovoltaic array capable of capturing an average of 3.81 kilowatt during the approximately 5 daily noontime hours available to all Califor­nians During these hours, each square meter of California receives at least 5 kilowatts of power from the sun. Since our constraining assumptions es­tablish that our solar array is 13% efficient and captures no energy outside noontime sun, a photovoltaic system of 29.3m2 (302 ft2) would power the needs of the average Californian residence.

By comparison, according to ABC New’s report, the average Ameri­can house is 2349 ft2 in area. Assuming the average house has two sto­ries of equal size, an array covering only slightly more than one-quarter of the house’s roof will meet the needs of the average American home in California.

At an initial capzital cost of $8.20 per watt, a 3.811 kilowatt system will have a total cost of $31,251. Deducting the 30% federal tax credit reduces the capital cost to $21,875. This cost is further reduced by the California Solar Initiative rebate, which reduces the cost to between $14,635 and $17,683 for the consumer. However, since an array of this size will fully meet the annual needs of the consumer (after annual net metering), the present value of 25 years of electricity bills must be considered. Given our constraining assumptions of a 6.7% annual increase in the price of electric­ity, a 7% discount rate, and a loss to generating capability of.9% per year, the present value of future electricity savings is $22,581. As these future savings are greater than the out-of-pocket costs to the consumer, installing such an array is a revenue-positive action on the part of the homeowner, earning him or her $4,897 to $7,946. After a single inverter replacement halfway through the 25-year lifetime of the array, this present value is reduced to $3,411 to $6,475. However, this consumer surplus came at a loss to federal and state governments of $13,567 to $16,616. This means each grid-neutral home creates a dead weight loss of $10,157. Of course, this money does not evaporate, it goes to another agent, the photovoltaic array-producing firm. However, it is a loss to the system between consum­ers and the government.

Even in situations where the present value of future savings on elec­tricity is less than zero, additional incentives remain for homeowners to purchase photovoltaic arrays. The most substantial of these is the boon to home resale value. While estimates vary on the precise level of increase in property value due to the installation of an array, the most common estimate is that decreases in annual operating cost increase home value by a ratio of 20:1. That is to say, an array that made a home grid-neutral would decrease the average California residence’s annual electricity bill by $1,037, leading to a $20,741 increase in the property’s resale value. The logic underlying this figure is that the annual savings allow the po­tential homeowner to take a larger mortgage to purchase the home, and the roughly $1,000 saved each year may be put into debt service on a 5% mortgage. A more theoretical analysis would conclude that the maximum increase in property value should equal the present value of remaining future electricity bills at the time of the transfer of ownership of the house. In either case, installing a photovoltaic array is revenue-positive decision for the current owner of the house even if the home is sold the day after the array is installed.

It is important to note that these estimates are somewhat conservative given our constraining assumptions that the array has no value after its 25 year lifespan, that it generates no electricity outside of noontime hours, that the array is in the parts of California that receive the least intense sunlight, and that this study does not take into account tiered electricity pricing since it is only active in some parts of California.

In most cases, tiered pricing on retail electricity will make solar tech­nology more attractive rather than less for most residential settings; in variable cost schemes, the price of electricity tends to be highest during the heat of the day, especially in the summer. At these times, photovoltaic arrays are at their most productive, and are likely to be producing more power than the attached home is consuming. As a result, the array will be pushing electricity onto the grid, generating net-metering credit when electricity is at its highest price. After sunset, when the photovoltaic array is not generating electricity, the residence will be drawing electricity from the grid when the price level is lower.

Of course, the most compelling reason for the widespread adoption of solar electricity generation technology is the reduction of the negative ex­ternalities of other sources of electrical power. In particular, the carbon di­oxide released by the burning of fossil fuels is understood to be the driving force behind global warming, and is thus a matter of prime concern. For instance, one kilowatt hour of power generation in California correlates to 0.30 kilograms (0.66 pounds) of CO2 emissions, meaning a grid-neutral photovoltaic array attached to the average California residence initially reduces carbon emissions by 2.1 metric tons per year. Over the 25-year lifespan of the array, accounting for decay in the quality of the land, total CO2 emissions are reduced by 45.6 metric tons. This equates to 12.2 kilo­grams of lifetime CO2 emissions reduced per watt of installed generation capacity. The initial capital cost of these CO2 emission reductions is 670 per kilogram over the lifetime of the array; the federal tax credit is 200, the California Solar Initiative rebate is 90 to 160, and the present value of consumer net revenue per kilogram of reduced CO2 emissions is 70 to 140,

depending on the level of state subsidy. The economy-wide cost of these reduced emissions is thus 220 per kilogram.

This analysis reveals that heavy subsidies from federal and state gov­ernments have made photovoltaic arrays a sensible investment for the av­erage residential consumer. If the consumer possesses the available roof space facing in an appropriate direction, a photovoltaic array is a profitable investment yielding 10-20% returns over the lifespan of the array, even after a 7% discount rate, and conservative estimates for the output of the array. Even as subsidies decrease, the increase to a home’s property value provide a strong incentive for homeowners to augment their homes with grid-tied photovoltaic arrays. These returns compare particularly favor­ably to other investments, as they are not subject to taxation; federal law mandates that photovoltaic arrays do not increase property taxes, and the present value of future electricity savings are already post-tax earnings.