Filenews 31 July 2022
By Christos Maxoulis*
I was asked to express my opinion on the imposition of a limit on the capacity (size) of a photovoltaic (PV) that one can install on his roof.
Let's make a brief historical review of the models we have used so far for the installation of PV systems on the roof of a residence.
In the early years, fit in tariff was applied. You installed a PV system on the roof and your consumption was completely separate from your production, i.e. the energy you channelled into the network. What you consumed you charged based on the tariffs and you received compensation an agreed amount for each kilowatt hour you channelled into the network. It is known that electricity does not have the typical characteristics of other products (its storage is very expensive, etc.). Therefore, it is of great importance and value to synchronize production with its consumption in a dwelling.
As a step forward, we went from fit in tariff to Net metering. Net metering offsets energy consumption from the home and produces energy from the PV on the roof every specific period, e.g. 12 months. There is the possibility of crediting excess (production minus consumption) of energy that you channelled into the network. If in this period of time (it seems that you are given another margin for the next pricing period) you do not consume this energy, then your "situation" is zero. That is, you are not compensated financially for any excess energy that you did not consume during this period, even though you channelled it into the network.
From Net metering we went to Net billing, which is a more rational and fair system. Things are similar, except that the offsetting is done on the value/cost of the energy and not on the energy of each of it. In other words, euros are offset and not kilowatt-hours. Here, too, you are not compensated with money for any positive balance of monetary value at the end of the period specified. Here we should say that in both cases you pay a network fee, depending on the use you make of it.
The limit on capacity
In the latest plans, a limit has been imposed on the PV capacity you will install. The annual electricity produced by the PV system that will be installed will not exceed 90% (discussed or has already become 100%) of the annual electricity consumption of the premises it will serve. If the building is existing, you rely on the consumption of previous years. If it is newly built, you rely on calculations.
There are two issues that have occupied public opinion in recent months. First, the approach that you will not be compensated for excess energy (production minus consumption) that you channelled into the grid and the second, the limit on the size of a photovoltaic.
This is a complex issue and I had heard arguments for both for and against. In relation to the issue of compensation, it was noted that if you will be a producer in the new market and you will have an economic benefit from this activity, you must also comply with the obligations of the producer. To be honest, the EU, which since 2002 has gradually but ambitiously upgraded the energy performance requirements for buildings, has set the future bar for zero CO2 buildings. That is, well-insulated buildings, which will meet their low energy needs entirely from renewable and not buildings energy producers. I agree with this approach.
Regarding the second question, namely that of the cap on size, my Professor at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, specializing in Energy Policy and Energy Systems, answered me:
"It depends, what the current situation is, where you want to go (i.e. you have long-term energy planning, which is detailed) and what it is that you want to serve." It should be noted here that long-term detailed energy planning is not our strong point.
The data and the goals
Let's glean data and targets:
- although I have also seen it as an election announcement, since 2020 through the Building with Almost Zero Energy Consumption there is a quasi-obligation to install PV in all newly built buildings, unless there are technical restrictions
- a large percentage of existing buildings, however, need an energy upgrade, including the installation of PV on its roof
- we have an electrical network, which in certain geographical places is not far from saturation levels. Therefore, if we leave the installation of PV on the roofs unchecked, the risk is visible in some areas to prohibit (or delay) by necessity the installation of a small PV system in a newly built building, although this is an obligation by law (or even in an existing one that will receive an energy upgrade).
Here we should open a parenthesis and talk about the responsibility of EAC, which in its effort to protect EAC production never (at least until recently) saw roof PV as part of the solution, but saw them as a threat. Therefore, he is accused of not upgrading the network in a timely manner. Of course the threat in the end is another, but that's another matter.
- we have begun to see phenomena of energy poverty, which will now be more and more frequent.
In addition to the above, often the supplier / installer, without the restriction, is tempted to sell a larger capacity (and more expensive) system than the one that meets the needs of the house. Consequently. under one perspective the limitation on size protects the average buyer.
On the other side, there are issues of future needs, greater freedom in electricity consumption, the purchase of an electric vehicle, a change in the heating system of a boiler with a heat pump, a change in the composition of the household, the shorter achievement of conditions of competition in the electricity market, etc.
Today's approach is satisfactory
Before I say my opinion, I note that as a supporter of Energy Efficiency First I do not agree with the "I want to be energy wasteful" approach, "I put an oversized PV system and we're done".
Based on all the above, I consider the existing approach (with the increase in the coverage rate), that is, to be allowed to place a PV system to cover 100% of your own needs and unless you establish a greater need, as satisfactory. If there is a problem somewhere it is in the people and in the suspicion of those who will give the deviation. But this is solved by better administration / management and not by relaxing the regulations. Besides, you cannot legislate or define requirements on the basis of theoretical future scenarios or on the basis of the exception of the general rule, when there are so many disadvantages.
If I were in the position of the State...
Given that the approach followed today or its improved version is satisfactory, I would focus on the position of the State:
- the immediate upgrade of the electricity network
- the further simplification of the permitting procedures (mainly the building permit) and the connection of the PV systems to the network
- the substantial reduction of the time for processing connection requests
- further supporting vulnerable households to install even a small system, as a measure to combat energy poverty
- the promotion of the institution of energy communities for the benefit of the inhabitants of the energy community and as an additional measure to combat energy poverty, which in recent years has increased in Cyprus.
* Mechanical Engineer
Dipl Eng, MBA
(Opinions expressed are personal)
