TWEETS

Full retail credit with no subtractions. Customers protected from fees and additional charges. Rules actively encourage use of DG.

A

Generally good net metering policies with full retail credit, but there could be certain fees or costs that detract from full retail equivalent value. There may be some obstacles to net metering.

B

Adequate net metering rules, but there could be some significant fees or other obstacles that undercut the value or make the process of net metering more difficult.

C

Poor net metering policies with substantial charges or other hindrances. Many customers will forgo an opportunity to install DG because net metering rules subtract substantial economic value.

D

Net metering policies that deter customer-sited DG.

F

No Statewide Policy

N/A

alabama

F

alaska

C

arizona

A

arkansas

A

california

A

colorado

A

connecticut

A

delaware

A

Dist. of Columbia

A

florida

B

georgia

F

hawaii

F

idaho

D

illinois

B

indiana

B

iowa

B

kansas

C

kentucky

B

louisiana

B

maine

B

maryland

A

massachusetts

A

michigan

B

minnesota

A

mississippi

F

missouri

B

montana

C

nebraska

B

nevada

F

new hampshire

A

new jersey

A

new mexico

B

new york

A

north carolina

C

north dakota

D

ohio

A

oklahoma

F

oregon

A

pennsylvania

A

puerto rico

N/A

rhode island

A

south carolina

B

south dakota

F

tennessee

F

texas

F

utah

A

vermont

A

virginia

C

west virginia

A

wisconsin

D

wyoming

D

  • 2007
  • 2008
  • 2009
  • 2010
  • 2011
  • 2012
  • 2013
  • 2014
  • 2015
  • 2016
  • 2017

Arizona

ANet Metering FInterconnection
  • 2007
  • 2008
  • 2009
  • 2010
  • 2011
  • 2012
  • 2013
  • 2014
  • 2015
  • 2016
  • 2017
  • N/A
  • B
  • A
  • A
  • A
  • A
  • A
  • A
  • A
  • A
  • A
  • 2007
  • 2008
  • 2009
  • 2010
  • 2011
  • 2012
  • 2013
  • 2014
  • 2015
  • 2016
  • 2017
  • B
  • B
  • C
  • N/A
  • N/A
  • N/A
  • N/A
  • N/A
  • F
  • F
  • F

Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies

Solar Thermal Electric, Photovoltaics, Landfill Gas, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric, Geothermal Electric, Municipal Solid Waste, CHP/Cogeneration, Hydrogen, Biogas, Anaerobic Digestion, Small Hydroelectric, Fuel Cells using Renewable Fuels

Applicable Sectors

Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Nonprofit, Schools, Local Government, State Government, Institutional

Applicable Utilities

Investor-owned utilities, electric co-ops

System Capacity Limit

No capacity limit specified, but system must be sized to meet part or all of customers electric load and may not exceed 125% of customers total connected load

Aggregate Capacity Limit

No limit specified

Net Excess Generation

Credited to customer's next bill at retail rate; excess reconciled annually at avoided-cost rate

REC Ownership

Customer owns RECs (must be relinquished to utility in exchange for distributed generation payments

Meter Aggregation

Not addressed

recommendations

  • Adopt safe harbor language to protect customer-generators from extra and/or unanticipated fees Eliminate the $0.70 per kilowatt monthly charge for new residential solar customers of APS

notes

In November 2013 the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) authorized APS to establish a $0.70/kW surcharge on all residential DG customers that enter contracts for a system after December 31, 2013, and that do not enroll under a demand-based tariff rate. One thing that makes this decision all the more striking is that Arizonas net metering rules contain a safe harbor clause requires any additional charge be fully supported by a cost-of-service studies and cost/benefit analysis, and provides that the utility bears the burden of proof on any proposed charge. The Arizona decision, which was counter to ACC Staffs recommendation that the issue be addressed in a general rate case, raises questions over the efficacy and strength of safe harbor clauses, especially where they exist only in regulations rather than statutes. While Arizonas safe harbor language has not changed in years, the scoring has been updated to reflect the fact that, in practice, the protections it offers have proven to be less meaningful than they appear to be under the law.

Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies

Solar Thermal Electric, Photovoltaics, Landfill Gas, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric, Geothermal Electric, Municipal Solid Waste, CHP/Cogeneration, Hydrogen, Biogas, Anaerobic Digestion, Small Hydroelectric, Fuel Cells using Renewable Fuels

Applicable Sectors

Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Nonprofit, Schools, Local Government, State Government, Institutional

Applicable Utilities

Investor-owned utilities, electric co-ops

System Capacity Limit

No capacity limit specified, but system must be sized to meet part or all of customers electric load and may not exceed 125% of customers total connected load

Aggregate Capacity Limit

No limit specified

Net Excess Generation

Credited to customer's next bill at retail rate; excess reconciled annually at avoided-cost rate

REC Ownership

Customer owns RECs (must be relinquished to utility in exchange for distributed generation payments

Meter Aggregation

Not addressed

recommendations

  • Adopt safe harbor language to protect customer-generators from extra and/or unanticipated fees Eliminate the $0.70 per kilowatt monthly charge for new residential solar customers of APS

notes

In November 2013 the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) authorized APS to establish a $0.70/kW surcharge on all residential DG customers that enter contracts for a system after December 31, 2013, and that do not enroll under a demand-based tariff rate. One thing that makes this decision all the more striking is that Arizonas net metering rules contain a safe harbor clause requires any additional charge be fully supported by a cost-of-service studies and cost/benefit analysis, and provides that the utility bears the burden of proof on any proposed charge. The Arizona decision, which was counter to ACC Staffs recommendation that the issue be addressed in a general rate case, raises questions over the efficacy and strength of safe harbor clauses, especially where they exist only in regulations rather than statutes. While Arizonas safe harbor language has not changed in years, the scoring has been updated to reflect the fact that, in practice, the protections it offers have proven to be less meaningful than they appear to be under the law.

Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies

Solar Thermal Electric, Photovoltaics, Landfill Gas, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric, Geothermal Electric, Fuel Cells, CHP/Cogeneration, Microturbines, Other Distributed Generation Technologies

Applicable Sectors

Commercial, Industrial, Residential

Applicable Utilities

Investor-owned utilities, SRP

System Capacity Limit

Varies by utility

Standard Agreement

N/A

Insurance Requirements

N/A

External Disconnect Switch

N/A

Net Metering Required

N/A

recommendations

  • Make the regulatory requirements uniform, using IREC standard interconnection recommendations, for all utilities.

notes

In November 2013 the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) authorized APS to establish a $0.70/kW surcharge on all residential DG customers that enter contracts for a system after December 31, 2013, and that do not enroll under a demand-based tariff rate. One thing that makes this decision all the more striking is that Arizonas net metering rules contain a safe harbor clause requires any additional charge be fully supported by a cost-of-service studies and cost/benefit analysis, and provides that the utility bears the burden of proof on any proposed charge. The Arizona decision, which was counter to ACC Staffs recommendation that the issue be addressed in a general rate case, raises questions over the efficacy and strength of safe harbor clauses, especially where they exist only in regulations rather than statutes. While Arizonas safe harbor language has not changed in years, the scoring has been updated to reflect the fact that, in practice, the protections it offers have proven to be less meaningful than they appear to be under the law.

Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies

Solar Thermal Electric, Photovoltaics, Landfill Gas, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric, Geothermal Electric, Fuel Cells, CHP/Cogeneration, Microturbines, Other Distributed Generation Technologies

Applicable Sectors

Commercial, Industrial, Residential

Applicable Utilities

Investor-owned utilities, SRP

System Capacity Limit

Varies by utility

Bonus

N/A

recommendations

  • Make the regulatory requirements uniform, using IREC standard interconnection recommendations, for all utilities.

notes

In November 2013 the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) authorized APS to establish a $0.70/kW surcharge on all residential DG customers that enter contracts for a system after December 31, 2013, and that do not enroll under a demand-based tariff rate. One thing that makes this decision all the more striking is that Arizonas net metering rules contain a safe harbor clause requires any additional charge be fully supported by a cost-of-service studies and cost/benefit analysis, and provides that the utility bears the burden of proof on any proposed charge. The Arizona decision, which was counter to ACC Staffs recommendation that the issue be addressed in a general rate case, raises questions over the efficacy and strength of safe harbor clauses, especially where they exist only in regulations rather than statutes. While Arizonas safe harbor language has not changed in years, the scoring has been updated to reflect the fact that, in practice, the protections it offers have proven to be less meaningful than they appear to be under the law.