Solar Feed-In Tariffs: Examining fair and reasonable retail rates using, cost avoidance estimates
Solar Feed-In Tariffs: Examining fair and reasonable retail rates using, cost avoidance estimates
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.050
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
9
通讯作者：
Nigel J. Martin;John P. Rice
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nigel J. Martin;John P. Rice
在不同地理区域不断发展的太阳能光伏（PV）电力系统给各国政府带来了复杂的政策问题。 2013-16年期间，澳大利亚昆士兰州政府研究制定公平合理的零售上网电价（FiT）政策，并指出该政策规范了州零售用电价格。综合成本规避和利益相关者分析表明，为所有利益相关者确定公平合理的上网电价补贴虽然是理想的，但很难实现。通常，公平关税率的协议将取决于利益相关者在能源供应链中的相对地位（服务提供商、零售商、供应商、客户、倡导者），以及对供应领域竞争可能形成的公平性的解释。此外，经历电价和运营成本上涨的非光伏客户和零售商可能会认为光伏客户经济利益的增加是不合理的。重要的是，在偏远地区和偏远地区应用零售上网电价补贴需要仔细的能源政策设计，考虑网络损耗、远程和孤立的客户计量、具有成本效益的网络控制技术和柴油发电机运行限制。该研究还指出，将上网电价补贴计划的资金从电力分销商转移到竞争性零售商可能会对零售上网电价补贴产品和光伏客户服务产生负面影响。
Growing Solar Photovoltaic (PV) electricity systems in geographically diverse regions presents a complex policy problem for governments. During 2013-16, the Queensland government in Australia, examined establishing a fair and reasonable retail Feed-in Tariff (FiT) policy, noting it regulates state retail electricity consumption prices. A combined cost avoidance and stakeholder analysis was applied to show that determination of a fair and reasonable FiT for all stakeholders, while aspirational, is difficult to achieve. Typically, agreement on a fair tariff rate will depend on stakeholders’ relative position in energy supply chains (service providers, retailers, suppliers, customers, advocates), and interpretations of fairness that can be shaped by competition in the supply area. Also, increases in financial benefits to PV customers might be considered unreasonable by non-PV customers and retailers that experience increases in electricity prices and operating costs. Importantly, the application of a retail FiT in regional and isolated areas requires careful energy policy design, taking account of network losses, remote and isolated customer metering, cost effective network control technologies, and diesel generator operating limits. The study also observed that shifting funding of FiT schemes from electricity distributors to competitive retailers will likely have negative consequences for retail FiT offerings and PV customer servicing.