Energetica India Magazine December 2020

SOLAR POWER 47 energetica INDIA- December_2020 cheaper power if it’s available. More - over, the claim is slightly exaggerated. Roof-top solar has limitations on its size due to availability of area and artificial cap on capacity as per net-metering pol- icies. Hence, most of the large C&I con - sumers can set-off only 4-7% of their an- nual consumption through roof-top solar. Moreover, states like Maharashtra have been steadily increasing the demand charges which should compensate for minor losses in revenue. 2. Treating the Grid as a storage de- vice: It is true, the net-metering policy treats the DISCOM network as a storage device without cost. The DISCOMS are completely correct in their assessment here. A practical solution was found in Maha - rashtra that announced that it would levy Grid Support Charges on roof-top instal - lations that use the net-metering systems after a 2,000 MW capacity is achieved in the state. This policy is practical as it allows the Rooftop Solar segment to grow to a certain size. After achieving that capacity, it was done right by the DISCOM’s and the consumer by levying Grid Support Charges on the exported units. Such a policy allows the excess Pow - er Generated by Roof-Top Solar Plants to be consumed and helps DISCOM’s make a fee off these Plants for using their distribution network and infrastructure. 3. Artificial Caps on Plant Size: Most states put artificial caps on roof-top solar plant sizes opting for net-metering. How- ever, there is no uniformity across states as well. Some states allow for Solar Plants until 100% of contract demand, while others allow until 50%. Some states put an additional restriction as per the Distribution Transformer capac- ity which can vary from 30-70%. Almost all the states have a cap of 1MW under net-metering. These artificial caps reduce the sav - ings a consumer can generate with their roof-top solar plant. Moreover, the technical arguments for why a certain state believes 50% of contract demand is the right number while others are comfortable with 100% is complex and sometimes confusing. There is no merit to these arguments apart from being re- strictive in nature and the only possible solution would be for a more technically sound argument for putting restrictions. 4. Timelines and Delay in net-meter- ing: Net-metering is a painful process for those who have undertaken it. While Solar plants can be built in 15 days, net-metering takes anywhere between 3 – 9 months for completion. Most states have clearly defined the process for net-metering and have introduced time - lines for the same. However, these time - lines are rarely followed by the Energy Development authority of the states, let aside the DISCOM. Moreover, there is no system that penalizes the tardiness of the officials in giving approval. To top it all, despite having an online applica - tion process, all documents must be submitted in hard copies in most states. The files move from officers to officers, encompassing more than 12 different of - ficials over a net-metering process. All of this must be done physically. This entails the physical presence of officers, which is difficult to obtain. If the entire process moves digitally and faceless like the changes in our income tax assessment, I believe there will be massive efficien - cy gains. Moreover, a penalty system or compensation mechanism should be built in to disincentivize and incentivize the DISCOMS and consumers, respec - tively. In Conclusion: As Solar is no longer in its early days, the Government’s proposed new caps on net-metering clearly indicate that the trend of policies against solar has al- ready begun. If the Capacity is cut from 1,000 to 5 KW, then the roof-top system is only capable of powering a two-ton Air-Conditioner for ten hours daily, which is a waste of resources and investment. It is a blow to advocates who are con - stantly fighting against climate change! Moreover, there are many challenges within the net-metering system that need to be ironed out. Net-metering is a ben- eficial tool not only for the consumer but also for the DISCOM. Net-metering re - duces the distribution cost for the DIS- COMS as excess power from roof-top in - stallations are fed to the next consuming factory or building. Hence, DISCOMS would be better served by becoming an active proponent and part of the roof-top solar rather than trying to derail. With storage costs reducing every year and solar panel power density seeing massive upgrades, it is a real possibili - ty that many consumers would be able to suffice their electricity consumption through their Solar + storage system in next 5-7 years. At that point, the DISCOM would have completely lost the consum - er and not just a part of it. Hence, it is the benefit of the entire eco system that DIS - COMS, ERC, Consumers and Installers work together on win-win solutions.