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

Wisconsin

DNet Metering DInterconnection
  • 2007
  • 2008
  • 2009
  • 2010
  • 2011
  • 2012
  • 2013
  • 2014
  • 2015
  • 2016
  • 2017
  • F
  • D
  • D
  • C
  • D
  • D
  • D
  • D
  • D
  • D
  • D
  • 2007
  • 2008
  • 2009
  • 2010
  • 2011
  • 2012
  • 2013
  • 2014
  • 2015
  • 2016
  • 2017
  • D
  • D
  • D
  • D
  • D
  • C
  • D
  • D
  • D
  • D
  • D

Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies

Solar Thermal Electric, Photovoltaics, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric, Geothermal Electric, Municipal Solid Waste, CHP/Cogeneration, Small Hydroelectric, Other Distributed Generation Technologies

Applicable Sectors

Commercial, Industrial, Residential

Applicable Utilities

Investor-owned utilities, municipal utilities

System Capacity Limit

20 kW (100 kW for wind for We Energies customers)

Aggregate Capacity Limit

No limit specified

Net Excess Generation

Generally credited at retail rate for renewables and avoided-cost for non-renewables

REC Ownership

Not addressed

Meter Aggregation

Not addressed

recommendations

  • The state should adopt IREC's net metering model rules

notes

Wisconsin should get credit for having one of the oldest net metering policies in the country, dating back to 1982. However, the state has not kept pace with the evolution of net metering as a state policy and as a consequence now ranks within the bottom quarter of state policies. Most significantly, the state receives a -1 out of a total possible score of 5 for generally limiting system capacity to 20 kW or less (though some utilities allow net metering for systems of up to 100 kW). It further loses points (scoring 0 out of a possible 3) for not providing any safe harbors against additional fees and charges, and for net excess generation crediting practices that do not allow for indefinite retail rollover, and allow one utility (Xcel Energy) to only credit customers for net excess generation at the avoided cost rate (scoring 1.5 out of a possible 3 points). If the state achieved the maximum number of points in these three categories, it could increase its score from 5.5 (C) to 16 (A), placing it on par with New Yorks net metering policy score and moving it into the top 15.

Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies

Solar Thermal Electric, Photovoltaics, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric, Geothermal Electric, Municipal Solid Waste, CHP/Cogeneration, Small Hydroelectric, Other Distributed Generation Technologies

Applicable Sectors

Commercial, Industrial, Residential

Applicable Utilities

Investor-owned utilities, municipal utilities

System Capacity Limit

20 kW (100 kW for wind for We Energies customers)

Aggregate Capacity Limit

No limit specified

Net Excess Generation

Generally credited at retail rate for renewables and avoided-cost for non-renewables

REC Ownership

Not addressed

Meter Aggregation

Not addressed

recommendations

  • The state should adopt IREC's net metering model rules

notes

Wisconsin should get credit for having one of the oldest net metering policies in the country, dating back to 1982. However, the state has not kept pace with the evolution of net metering as a state policy and as a consequence now ranks within the bottom quarter of state policies. Most significantly, the state receives a -1 out of a total possible score of 5 for generally limiting system capacity to 20 kW or less (though some utilities allow net metering for systems of up to 100 kW). It further loses points (scoring 0 out of a possible 3) for not providing any safe harbors against additional fees and charges, and for net excess generation crediting practices that do not allow for indefinite retail rollover, and allow one utility (Xcel Energy) to only credit customers for net excess generation at the avoided cost rate (scoring 1.5 out of a possible 3 points). If the state achieved the maximum number of points in these three categories, it could increase its score from 5.5 (C) to 16 (A), placing it on par with New Yorks net metering policy score and moving it into the top 15.

Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies

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

Applicable Sectors

Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Nonprofit, Schools, Local Government, State Government, Fed. Government

Applicable Utilities

Investor-owned utilities, municipal utilities

System Capacity Limit

15 MW

Standard Agreement

N/A

Insurance Requirements

N/A

External Disconnect Switch

N/A

Net Metering Required

Standardized interconnection agreement adopted that applies to all utilities

recommendations

  • Prohibit requirements for redundant external disconnect switch Prohibit requirements for additional insurance

notes

Wisconsin should get credit for having one of the oldest net metering policies in the country, dating back to 1982. However, the state has not kept pace with the evolution of net metering as a state policy and as a consequence now ranks within the bottom quarter of state policies. Most significantly, the state receives a -1 out of a total possible score of 5 for generally limiting system capacity to 20 kW or less (though some utilities allow net metering for systems of up to 100 kW). It further loses points (scoring 0 out of a possible 3) for not providing any safe harbors against additional fees and charges, and for net excess generation crediting practices that do not allow for indefinite retail rollover, and allow one utility (Xcel Energy) to only credit customers for net excess generation at the avoided cost rate (scoring 1.5 out of a possible 3 points). If the state achieved the maximum number of points in these three categories, it could increase its score from 5.5 (C) to 16 (A), placing it on par with New Yorks net metering policy score and moving it into the top 15.

Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies

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

Applicable Sectors

Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Nonprofit, Schools, Local Government, State Government, Fed. Government

Applicable Utilities

Investor-owned utilities, municipal utilities

System Capacity Limit

15 MW

Bonus

N/A

recommendations

  • Prohibit requirements for redundant external disconnect switch Prohibit requirements for additional insurance

notes

Wisconsin should get credit for having one of the oldest net metering policies in the country, dating back to 1982. However, the state has not kept pace with the evolution of net metering as a state policy and as a consequence now ranks within the bottom quarter of state policies. Most significantly, the state receives a -1 out of a total possible score of 5 for generally limiting system capacity to 20 kW or less (though some utilities allow net metering for systems of up to 100 kW). It further loses points (scoring 0 out of a possible 3) for not providing any safe harbors against additional fees and charges, and for net excess generation crediting practices that do not allow for indefinite retail rollover, and allow one utility (Xcel Energy) to only credit customers for net excess generation at the avoided cost rate (scoring 1.5 out of a possible 3 points). If the state achieved the maximum number of points in these three categories, it could increase its score from 5.5 (C) to 16 (A), placing it on par with New Yorks net metering policy score and moving it into the top 15.