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

Colorado

ANet Metering BInterconnection
  • 2007
  • 2008
  • 2009
  • 2010
  • 2011
  • 2012
  • 2013
  • 2014
  • 2015
  • 2016
  • 2017
  • A
  • A
  • A
  • A
  • A
  • A
  • A
  • A
  • A
  • A
  • A
  • 2007
  • 2008
  • 2009
  • 2010
  • 2011
  • 2012
  • 2013
  • 2014
  • 2015
  • 2016
  • 2017
  • C
  • C
  • B
  • B
  • B
  • B
  • B
  • B
  • B
  • B
  • B

Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies

Solar Thermal Electric, Photovoltaics, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric, Geothermal Electric, Recycled Energy, Small Hydroelectric, Fuel Cells using Renewable Fuels

Applicable Sectors

Commercial, Industrial, Residential

Applicable Utilities

All utilities (exceptions for small municipal utilities)

System Capacity Limit

IOU customers: 120% of the customer's average annual consumption. Muni and co-op customers: 25 kW for non-residential & 10 kW for residential

Aggregate Capacity Limit

No limit specified

Net Excess Generation

Credited to customer's next bill at retail rate. IOUs pay customers at end of calendar year at average hourly incremental cost, or customer may opt for indefinite roll-over Munis and co-ops provide annual reconciliation at a rate they deem appropriate

REC Ownership

Customer owns RECs (must be relinquished to utility for 20 years in exchange for incentives)

Meter Aggregation

Allowed for IOU customers; rules under development

recommendations

  • Allow rules to cover muni and co-op customers Prohibit surcharge on retail NEM for the RESA account of the IOU/QRU

notes

In terms of overall state net metering practices, Colorado represents the gold standard among actual state policies. That said, there are elements that could be improved upon. Most significantly, though not affecting the state score, the statutory basis for net metering (and interconnection) is heavily tied with the implementation of the states RPS and REC-purchase programs providing incentives for customer-sited generation. This characteristic is less than ideal because net metering and interconnection are best seen as policies wholly separate from a states RPS and incentive programs. A tie between these distinct policies can give rise to questions over the availability of net metering and guaranteed interconnection where an incentive program has been allowed to sunset, or a utility does not require additional renewable resources in order to comply with the RPS. The simple existence of such questions, whether or not they have any merit, can create uncertainty in the market and ultimately have an adverse affect on the continued development of distributed generation.

Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies

Solar Thermal Electric, Photovoltaics, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric, Geothermal Electric, Recycled Energy, Small Hydroelectric, Fuel Cells using Renewable Fuels

Applicable Sectors

Commercial, Industrial, Residential

Applicable Utilities

All utilities (exceptions for small municipal utilities)

System Capacity Limit

IOU customers: 120% of the customer's average annual consumption. Muni and co-op customers: 25 kW for non-residential & 10 kW for residential

Aggregate Capacity Limit

No limit specified

Net Excess Generation

Credited to customer's next bill at retail rate. IOUs pay customers at end of calendar year at average hourly incremental cost, or customer may opt for indefinite roll-over Munis and co-ops provide annual reconciliation at a rate they deem appropriate

REC Ownership

Customer owns RECs (must be relinquished to utility for 20 years in exchange for incentives)

Meter Aggregation

Allowed for IOU customers; rules under development

recommendations

  • Allow rules to cover muni and co-op customers Prohibit surcharge on retail NEM for the RESA account of the IOU/QRU

notes

In terms of overall state net metering practices, Colorado represents the gold standard among actual state policies. That said, there are elements that could be improved upon. Most significantly, though not affecting the state score, the statutory basis for net metering (and interconnection) is heavily tied with the implementation of the states RPS and REC-purchase programs providing incentives for customer-sited generation. This characteristic is less than ideal because net metering and interconnection are best seen as policies wholly separate from a states RPS and incentive programs. A tie between these distinct policies can give rise to questions over the availability of net metering and guaranteed interconnection where an incentive program has been allowed to sunset, or a utility does not require additional renewable resources in order to comply with the RPS. The simple existence of such questions, whether or not they have any merit, can create uncertainty in the market and ultimately have an adverse affect on the continued development of distributed generation.

Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies

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

Applicable Sectors

Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Nonprofit, Schools, Utility, Agricultural, Institutional

Applicable Utilities

All utilities (exceptions for small municipal utilities)

System Capacity Limit

10 MW

Standard Agreement

N/A

Insurance Requirements

N/A

External Disconnect Switch

N/A

Net Metering Required

N/A

recommendations

  • Increase covered system capacity to cover all system sizes Eliminate additional insurance requirements entirely

notes

In terms of overall state net metering practices, Colorado represents the gold standard among actual state policies. That said, there are elements that could be improved upon. Most significantly, though not affecting the state score, the statutory basis for net metering (and interconnection) is heavily tied with the implementation of the states RPS and REC-purchase programs providing incentives for customer-sited generation. This characteristic is less than ideal because net metering and interconnection are best seen as policies wholly separate from a states RPS and incentive programs. A tie between these distinct policies can give rise to questions over the availability of net metering and guaranteed interconnection where an incentive program has been allowed to sunset, or a utility does not require additional renewable resources in order to comply with the RPS. The simple existence of such questions, whether or not they have any merit, can create uncertainty in the market and ultimately have an adverse affect on the continued development of distributed generation.

Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies

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

Applicable Sectors

Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Nonprofit, Schools, Utility, Agricultural, Institutional

Applicable Utilities

All utilities (exceptions for small municipal utilities)

System Capacity Limit

10 MW

Bonus

N/A

recommendations

  • Increase covered system capacity to cover all system sizes Eliminate additional insurance requirements entirely

notes

In terms of overall state net metering practices, Colorado represents the gold standard among actual state policies. That said, there are elements that could be improved upon. Most significantly, though not affecting the state score, the statutory basis for net metering (and interconnection) is heavily tied with the implementation of the states RPS and REC-purchase programs providing incentives for customer-sited generation. This characteristic is less than ideal because net metering and interconnection are best seen as policies wholly separate from a states RPS and incentive programs. A tie between these distinct policies can give rise to questions over the availability of net metering and guaranteed interconnection where an incentive program has been allowed to sunset, or a utility does not require additional renewable resources in order to comply with the RPS. The simple existence of such questions, whether or not they have any merit, can create uncertainty in the market and ultimately have an adverse affect on the continued development of distributed generation.