The impact of PVs and EVs on domestic electricity network charges: A case study from Great Britain
Introduction
Electricity regulators, such as Ofgem in Great Britain, allow their distribution network operators (DNOs) to collect a certain amount of revenue during each regulatory control period. This so-called allowed revenue is calculated with reference to expected operating expenditures (OPEX), depreciation, interest and other costs of the network operators. The tariffs of each DNO are then determined and designed to recover these costs. However, the way to recover this given amount of revenue is a complex problem which is attracting the attention of DNOs, regulatory bodies and academia. Alongside this there is an increase in distributed generation (including domestic solar PV), storage units and electric vehicles (EVs) on the power grid. This has the potential both to reallocate who pays for the distribution network and to substantially increase distribution network cost. On the other hand, according to the Energy and Climate Change Public Attitude Tracker, Wave 23 report (BEIS, 2017) 20% of the British energy customers were either very or fairly worried about paying energy bills in 2017. The worry is highest among customers with household incomes up to £15,999 (26% of the customers) and lowest among those with household incomes over £50,000 (12% of the customers). It is against this background that the impacts of distribution charging methodologies under different PV and EV roll-out scenarios is of concern to regulators.
There have been several recent studies aiming to forecast the necessary amount of investment to meet the new challenges posed by the evolving power grid and changing consumer behaviour. The MIT Utility of the Future report (MIT Energy Initiative, 2016) observes that if the distributed PV generation increases to more than 20% of total electricity demand, then the cost of the network could double in the most extreme case. Similarly, a study by the Smart Grid Forum from Great Britain estimates that from 2012 to 2050, the network related investments would be as much as £60bn across all distribution and transmission networks in the country (Smart Grids Forum, 2012). During the decentralized energy transition, energy storage could be a game changer. With rapidly increasing distributed generation (DG) connected to the grid, intermittency arises as one of the major problems for the power system planners. In addition to the solutions proposed as a part of demand side management techniques, storage could be a viable option especially for domestic loads. Contemporary residential energy storage solutions can be summarized as follows:
- •
Power to heat, such as heat pumps
- •
Using electric vehicles as home storage, Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G)
- •
Batteries
Thanks to the rapid development of electric vehicles (and other sources of battery demand), the cost of batteries has been falling significantly. Average battery pack prices fell from US$1000 per kWh in 2010, to US$ 350 per kWh in 2017 (World Energy Council, 2017). It is evident that energy storage could therefore have a significant impact on distribution network costs by directly affecting the volume of energy imports and imports across the day in the presence of time-of-use (ToU) tariffs. Nevertheless, to narrow our focus, this topic has been omitted from the scope of this paper.
To achieve more cost reflective and more efficient network tariffs, different charging methodologies have been suggested by various researchers. A recent study from the United States focuses on distribution system cost analysis in the United States and concludes that if volume (kWh) decreases, the delivery costs are likely to increase in the future (Fares and King, 2017). Hinz et al. (2018) show that the grid charges in Germany are rising with the increasing penetration of distributed generation. The paper by Nijhuisa et al. (2017) analyses the cost reflectivity of different tariffs in the presence of changing EV and PV penetrations for the residential customers. Neuteleers et al. introduce alternative tariff schemes for electricity grids for Dutch households by evaluating them with respect to their fairness (Neuteleers et al., 2017). Passey et al. (2017) present a cost-reflectivity analysis of demand charge tariffs, which was done by using the energy consumption data of household customers in Sydney, Australia. Another study from Australia proposes five different tariff designs for distribution network charges to recover residual costs (Brown et al., 2015). However, this study does not designate a best solution for recovering these costs. Rubin (2015) suggests that seasonal residential electric distribution rates with seasonal consumption charges might be used to reach a more efficient rate design. On the other hand, a study from Sweden by Bartusch et al. (2011) proposes a demand-based tariff for residential customers instead of tariffs depending on average system costs, which in general, are not being differentiated by time-of-use. Other studies focusing on how distributed generation affect power delivery costs can be found (Cohen et al., 2016, Perez-Arriaga, 2016, Picciariello et al., 2015a, Picciariello et al., 2015b, Abeygunawardana et al., 2015, Georgilakis and Hatziargyriou, 2013, Yilmaz and Krein, 2013).
In a study from the United States, the implications of increasing PV penetration on network tariffs are studied by Picciariello et al., 2015a, Picciariello et al., 2015b. This study concludes that cross-subsidies arise when net metering combined with pure volumetric tariffs is applied. The amount of cross-subsidies varies depending on the amount of the distributed generation (DG) connected to the grid. In a study from California, US, Borenstein (2016) highlights the advantages and disadvantages of fixed and volumetric charges in recovering the fixed costs of the utilities and recommends an increased amount of fixed charges with time-varying volumetric rates. Another study by Eid et al. (2014) focuses on cross-subsidies due to net metering with increasing PV use and shows that if total PV penetration reaches 20% of the end-users, the cross-subsidies might reach as much as 7.8% of the tariffs. In his comprehensive study, Simshauser (2016) shows that for Queensland in Australia, the existing two-part tariff structure ends up in wealth transfer from the customers who do not possess solar power to the ones who do. The study concludes that the households that do not possess an air-conditioner or a solar PV faced a network charge increase at an amount of 295 AUD per year (Simshauser, 2016). Even though there are numerous papers addressing the impacts of PV uptake on distribution network charges, the literature for EV penetration and its outcomes on distribution charges and tariffs is quite limited.
This paper uses a case study from Great Britain which shows the impact of increasing penetration of photovoltaics (PVs) and electric vehicles (EVs) under existing network charges. Its aim is to show the extent to which different types of customers will see their charges vary under different roll-out scenarios for PVs and EVs, regardless of the underlying cost increases in network costs that such roll-outs might impose. This is an area which is of active concern to electricity regulators, one of whose primary functions is to protect consumers facing monopoly distribution charges. In Great Britain, the electricity regulator (Ofgem) has been working on a distribution tariff review to reconsider the ‘residual’ charges with the following core principles (Ofgem, 2017a):
- •
being cost reflective
- •
reducing distortions
- •
fairness
- •
proportionality
In addition to the main principles of Ofgem, the European Commission (EC) has its own guidelines for a better distribution tariffs design, where cost reflectivity is explained as where “costs should be allocated to those agents who impose the costs” (European Commission, 2016, p.35).
At this point, however, we should make a remark that the principle of cost reflectivity in Britain and in Europe is slightly different. By creating cost reflective distribution tariffs Ofgem aims to reflect the full economic costs in the network in ways that give incentives to customers to use the network efficiently. On the other hand, cost reflectivity from the European perspective is more about fairness. Distribution costs are supposed to be charged to those who are responsible for it. However, we see that fair tariffs are the common core concern for both Britain and Europe.2
In this paper, our main motivation is to question fairness in distribution tariffs in Britain. For a general discussion of the principles of network charging, see Pollitt (2018). As the problem statement, we ask; what is the situation with British electricity customers in terms of designing fair distribution tariffs among different types of customers who may or may not own EVs and/or PVs? To analyse this problem we examine two DNOs: the most and least expensive ones in Great Britain. For each, we define four customer types, which are:
- •
Customers who own PVs and EVs;
- •
Customers who own PVs but not EVs;
- •
Customers who own EVs but not PVs;
- •
And finally, customers who do not own either.
Section 2 of this paper gives brief information about the power distribution system, network charging and solar PV and EV potential in Britain. Section 3 presents the methodology and Section 4 includes the results of the tariff calculations per each customer group with respect to changing PV and EV uptakes. Section 5 concludes our paper with a discussion of the policy implications of our findings.
Section snippets
Power distribution in Great Britain
There are 14 licensed distribution network operators (DNOs) in Britain and these DNOs are owned by six different groups. DNO regions are shown in Fig. 1.
The DNO groups and individual DNOs are:
Electricity North West Limited (ENWL)
Northern Powergrid (NPg):
- •
Northern Powergrid (Northeast) Limited
- •
Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc
Scottish and Southern Energy (SSEPD):
- •
Scottish Hydro Electric Power Distribution plc
- •
Southern Electric Power Distribution plc
Scottish Power Energy Networks (SP):
- •
SP
Methodology
The choice of the regions is pre-determined by the values of the variable distribution costs: we selected the regions where the costs are highest – Scottish Hydro Electric Power Distribution (SHEPD), which serves North of Scotland- and lowest – London Power Networks (LPN), which serves London.
In our analysis we examine four customer types:
- i.
Residential customer with no EV and no PV
- ii.
Residential customer with PV but no EV
- iii.
Residential customer with EV but no PV
- iv.
Residential customer who owns both EV and
Results
We should note that these total revenues are the allowed revenues calculated by the CDCM for each DNO. With changing net metering due to varying penetrations of PVs and EVs, the allowed revenues for the DNOs are kept constant. In addition to this, the fixed charges per customer per day are also kept constant. Therefore, in order to collect the same targeted revenues, the only way for DNOs is to adjust the variable volumetric rate which is collected from the customers. To show how the
Conclusions and policy implications
Increasing behind-the-meter generation will bring down the metered volumes used in two-part tariffs, which will naturally lead to increasing unit prices in order to reach the same allowed revenue. To tackle sharp increases in the distribution network charges among the households which do not own solar PVs in Queensland, Australia, Simshauser (2016) proposes a three-part network charging design instead of the traditional two-part tariffs. The three-part tariff is composed of a fixed component, a
References (62)
- et al.
Introducing a demand-based electricity distribution tariff in the residential sector: demand response and customer perception
Energy Policy
(2011) The economics of fixed cost recovery by utilities
Electr. J.
(2016)- et al.
Incentives for promoting battery electric vehicle (BEV) adoption in Norway
Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.
(2016) - et al.
Efficient tariff structures for distribution network services
Econ. Anal. Policy
(2015) - et al.
The economic effect of electricity net-metering with solar PV: consequences for network cost recovery, cross subsidies and policy objectives
Energy Policy
(2014) - et al.
Trends in transmission, distribution, and administration costs for U.S. investor-owned electric utilities
Energy Policy
(2017) - et al.
Regional distribution effects of different electricity network tariff designs with a distributed generation structure: the case of Germany
Energy Policy
(2018) - et al.
Effects of distributed PV generation on California's distribution system, part 2: economic analysis
Sol. Energy
(2016) - et al.
Assessing fairness of dynamic grid tariffs
Energy Policy
(2017) - et al.
What is needed for battery electric vehicles to become socially cost competitive?
Econ. Transp.
(2016)
Designing more cost reflective electricity network tariffs with demand charges
Energy Policy
Electricity distribution tariffs and distributed generation: quantifying cross-subsidies from consumers to prosumers
Uti. Policy
Moving toward demand-based residential rates
Electr. J.
Impact & Opportunities for Wide-Scale EV Deployment
Energy and Climate Change Public Attitude Tracker: Wave 23
Hydro Benefit Replacement Scheme & Common: Three Year Review of Statutory Schemes: Consultation Tariff Obligation
Cited by (34)
Distributed local energy: Assessing the determinants of domestic-scale solar photovoltaic uptake at the local level across England and Wales
2023, Renewable and Sustainable Energy ReviewsCitation Excerpt :Uncertainty over the future direction of the UK's energy system and other socio-technical barriers [128, 129] may have stymied EV investment. Kufeoğlu and Pollitt [84] find that most EVs in Great Britain are charged at home, which could influence the economics of PV favourably, and suggest wider rollout of EVs could lead to cost reductions for all households. These innovations could be catalysts for one another in a broader system-shift, if the support is available.
Investment strategies under stochastic electricity prices and implications for charging infrastructure network coverage: A case of photovoltaic pavements
2022, Computers and Industrial EngineeringA coordinated optimal programming scheme for an electric vehicle fleet in the residential sector
2021, Sustainable Energy, Grids and NetworksThe value of vehicle-to-grid in a decarbonizing California grid
2021, Journal of Power Sources
- 1
The authors acknowledge the help of Wadim Strielkowski, Ofgem and National Grid in completing this paper. The usual disclaimer applies.