Renewable Energy 108 (2017) 169e178

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

An economic assessment of distributed solar PV generation in Sweden

from a consumer perspective e The impact of demand response
Emil Nyholm*, Mikael Odenberger, Filip Johnsson
€gskola, SE - 412 96 Go
Energiteknik, Chalmers Tekniska Ho €teborg, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We present an economic assessment of the impacts of Demand Response (DR) and pricing schemes on
Received 22 June 2016 the conditions for distributed solar photovoltaics, with the focus on individual households. An optimi-
Received in revised form zation model has been developed that minimizes the electricity cost for individual households with the
15 February 2017
option of dispatching DR loads. DR of appliances and hydronic heating (electrical water heating for both
Accepted 17 February 2017
space heating and hot water) are investigated, as well as the effects of applying a monthly, hourly or net
Available online 20 February 2017
metering pricing scheme for selling excess generated electricity and a tax reduction scheme for elec-
tricity sold to the grid.
Keywords:
Demand response
We show that for Swedish conditions a monthly net metering pricing scheme would result in the
Distributed solar photovoltaics largest PV installations per household (median rated capacity of 4.2 kWp/household). The use of the tax
Economic assessment reduction scheme reduces the installation per household (2.1 kWp/household), but with an installation
Net metering being profitable for a larger fraction of the households. Furthermore, the tax reduction scheme retains an
incentive for engaging in DR. The use of hydronic DR can support the same installations sizes as the tax
reduction scheme, whilst Appliance DR is shown to have only a low impact on the profitability of a PV
installation.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The installation of distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) generation
in Sweden doubled for the fourth year in a row during 2014 [21].
The future expansion of distributed PV will be dependent on the
pricing scheme applied to electricity sold to the grid as well as the
ability to use generated electricity locally in such installations. This
work investigates the potential role of PV installations from the
perspective of households, and investigates how electricity pricing
schemes and demand response (DR) can either facilitate or hinder
the implementation of PV for the private consumer. The analysis is
made for the Swedish residential sector, with the aims of arriving at
general conclusions that are applicable also to other markets.
The economic performance of a small-scale Distributed Solar
Photovoltaics (DSP) installation, such as that operating at the
household level, is dependent upon the consumers' payment
scheme. In general, there is a substantial difference between the
wholesale price of electricity that is sold to the grid and the price of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: emiln@chalmers.se (E. Nyholm).
electricity that is bought from the grid, as the buying price usually
includes various transfer fees and taxes. Consequently, the house-
hold load profile and the size and generation profile of any DSP
installation as well as the payment scheme for buying electricity
are decisive factors in determining the economics of exchange with
the surrounding electricity grid. While the current most common
payment scheme for buying electricity for Swedish households is a
fixed flat rate, which can be based on anything from monthly av-
erages of the spot market prices to fixed rates over longer time
periods of up to years [37], any excess generated electricity is fed to
the grid and traded on the spot market where payment is cleared
on an hourly basis. This restricts DSP installations to rather low
capacities to avoid selling electricity to the grid, as the price
received for sold electricity is too low to justify a larger investment.
Starting in 2015, Sweden has implemented a tax reduction, in the
form of a tax credit, of V0.069/kWh for excess electricity produc-
tion that is fed into the grid from DSP [27]. Furthermore, a
renewable energy certificate scheme is currently in place in Swe-
den, jointly with Norway, with an annually increasing quota of
renewable electricity out of the total electricity generation [25].
Certificates are traded on a market in which excess certificates can
be sold to non-renewable electricity producers, thereby providing

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.02.050
0960-1481/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
170 E. Nyholm et al. / Renewable Energy 108 (2017) 169e178
economic incentives for renewable electricity generation. However,
those households that have participated have only received cer-
tificates for the amount of electricity they have sold and not for
their total generated electricity [43]. Investment support has also
been adopted in Sweden and has a budget of V78 million for the
period 2013e2018.
An alternative strategy to increase the value of DSP-produced
electricity is to increase self-consumption of generated electricity,
using Demand-Side Management (DSM) measures in the form of
Demand Response (DR), i.e., shifting loads to hours of excess gen-
eration based on electricity price signals.
Previous related studies have investigated different financial
support or electricity pricing schemes designed to facilitate the
expansion of distributed power [13]. reviewed 16 studies con-
cerning the costs and benefits of distributed solar PV in the USA.
They conclude that there are many factors to include (e.g. envi-
ronmental, grid support value and financial value) as well as
different stakeholders to which the different benefits and costs may
accrue. They identify several gaps in research, one being the need to
investigate PV in the context of DSM [46]. calculated the social
welfare generated (here defined as the sum of the consumer sur-
plus, profit for the electric utility, and environmental benefits) by a
net purchase and sell, a net metering system, and a feed-in tariff
scheme. Yamamoto concluded that a net purchase and sell, as well
as net metering would result in the highest level of social welfare
provided there would be a sufficiently strong reduction in elec-
tricity consumption as a result of implementing the schemes. If the
reduction in electricity consumption due to the measures turned
out to be low, feed-in tariffs, which carry no incentive to reduce
electricity consumption, would generate the highest level of social
welfare [2]. compared the impact of time-of-use electricity rates
and flat electricity rates on solar PV investments in California. Time-
of-use rates charge higher prices for electricity during peak de-
mand hours and lower prices during off-peak hours. Borenstein
concludes that time-of-use pricing is beneficial for a vast majority
of households with a PV investment [3]. compared renewable en-
ergy certificates with other policies, e.g. net metering and tax
credits, with respect to their impact on PV investments in different
US states. They show that RECs can be a more powerful driver in the
implementation of solar PV than the other policies investigated due
to their disconnection from the electricity price. However, the un-
certainty of future prices for RECs is a major drawback for this
scheme. In order to lessen the uncertainty they propose a guar-
anteed minimum price for the RECs. Several studies have investi-
gated the potential of net metering compared to that of other
financial support schemes [4,5,7,10,24,32]. For instance [7], exam-
ined 200 households in California and concluded that net metering
was preferable for the households over a feed-in tariff or hourly/
monthly payment for excess electricity, with the caveat that this
was based on the Californian tiered electricity pricing structure. For
a Cypriot household [32], concluded that at the existing price levels,
net metering was preferable to feed-in tariffs for a household with
installations that exceeded 2.5kWp. However, all these previous
studies applied a top-down methodology, with the exception of [7]
and [32]; and investigated financial measures, while none of the
studies included DR measures as alternatives to support the
employment of DSP.
The combination of DR and distributed PV in a Swedish context
has previously been investigated by Ref. [45]. Their aim was to
investigate storage and the ability of DR to maximize self-
consumption of generated PV electricity. They concluded that for
low-excess generation, load shifting is preferable, whereas at high
levels of PV electricity generation storage is better. This is because
the drawback of losses from storage becomes small at large storage
sizes and because for DSM, not enough energy is available to shift to
hours of excess generation. However, no economic considerations
were taken into account in that study [44]. also investigated the
value of DR of appliances together with PV in Swedish households
and concluded that savings of up to V20 per year are possible.
However, the savings are dependent on the electricity price during
the year investigated [31]. investigated different net metering and
feed-in-tariff schemes together with DR, and they concluded that
the economic savings for households were modest, whereas reve-
nues for retailers and distribution system operators were reduced.
However, if constraints were introduced into the electricity
network, the distribution system operator could benefit. Castillo-
Cagigal et al. [6] studied DSM and storage coupled with PV in an
actual energy/electricity self-sufficient house. They showed that
DSM could reduce the required storage size and increase self-
consumption. However, they did not provide any economic evalu-
ation of the profitability of DSM.
Although the above-mentioned studies provide valuable in-
sights into the benefits of different pricing schemes, retail price
structures, and DSM measures, there is a general lack of studies that
compare DSM measures (in our case, in the form of DR measures) to
pricing schemes with respect to the ability of DR to promote the
implementation of DSP. Studies that investigate these aspects for
Swedish conditions, in which there are different generation and
usage patterns compared to continental Europe, are also lacking.
This study aims to investigate the potentials of DR and elec-
tricity pricing schemes as means to support the implementation of
distributed PV in a Swedish context. The analysis is based on the
electricity demand for single-family dwellings in Sweden.
2. Methodology
This study applies modeling of the hourly energy balances of
individual households with the objective of minimizing annual
costs of electricity. This is done by assessing several different cases
in which factors that influence the economic performance of solar
PV installations at the household level are varied, e.g., market setup,
and whether or not loads can be shifted in time to exploit the
generated PV electricity. Thus, this requires an analysis that in-
cludes hourly electricity generation profiles from the PV installa-
tion, as well as hourly electricity use profiles, whereby the latter is
dynamic (model output) in cases that include load shifting. The
modeling outline shown in Fig. 1 consists of two sub-models. The
first sub-model1 calculates the rate of conversion of solar irradia-
tion to electricity, whereas the second sub-model2 involves the
optimization step to minimize the annual electricity cost for an
individual household. In addition, for cases that include DR, the
load shifting is handled by cost minimization, i.e., cost reductions
are the driver for any shifting of loads. In total, 21 different Swedish
households in freestanding houses are modeled individually, and
the results are presented as the median values and ranges for these
households. The median value is used because electricity con-
sumption by the investigated households does not follow a normal
distribution. The 21 households are taken from a study that was
conducted during Year 2007 by the Swedish Energy Agency with
the aim of describing the electricity use in the residential sector and
the impacts of efficiency measures. That study monitored the
households over a period of 1 year with individual measurements
of the electricity consumption of different appliances and heating
equipment [47]. The houses have a median consumption of
12,000 kWh/year (ranging from 3400 to 28,000 kWh/year) and are
primarily located in the Stockholm area, but houses in northern,
1
Implemented in Matlab.
2
Implemented in GAMS.
 E. Nyholm et al. / Renewable Energy 108 (2017) 169e178 171

Fig. 1. Flow chart of the modeling applied in this work. The inputs in the form of PV technology and weather data are fed to a Solar PV output model, which generates a PV
electricity production profile; this profile is then used as the input to a Household electricity-cost minimization model, which together with cost, market, and household electricity
consumption data generates the yearly electricity cost.

southern, and western Sweden are also included.




minCtot ¼ cpan  pPV  i 1  1 ð1  iÞypan þ cinv  pPV  i 1

 X  
 1 ð1  iÞyinv þ Epur;h  spur;h þ npur þ k
2.1. Solar PV output model h
X  
þ cpan  pPV  m  Esold;h  ssold;h þ nsold  ep
The Solar PV output model estimates the hourly electricity h
generation profiles of a solar PV installation. The methods for r
calculating irradiance on a tilted surface are based on the work of
[9,15]; and [8]. For calculating PV panel output, the studies of [17] (1)
and [14] are used. For a detailed description of the applied meth-
odology and applications, see the previous work of [30]. For the Epur;h ¼ efixed;h þ EDR;h  ep (2)
region investigated, the variation in average PV output range from
910 to 1080 kWh/kWp, depending on location.  
Esold;h ¼ ep  efixed;h þ EDR;h (3)

2.2. Household electricity cost model
As already mentioned, the objective of the model is to minimize
the annual cost of electricity for individual households. Thus, the
model assesses the annual electricity cost of a single household
with (optimization) and without (simulation) the availability of
shiftable loads. The dispatch of shiftable loads is limited by the
technical constraints given for each of the evaluated DR loads. The
model is a mixed-integer-programming model that enables eval-
uation of discrete DR loads. Inputs and outputs to the model are
given in Table 1.
Equations (1)e(3) represent a simplified model description,
starting with the objective function:
In brief, the model finds the least cost alternative (min Ctot) for a
household through a combination of demand profile, PV generation
profile, and shiftable loads. The net electricity demand (Epur,h) is the
sum of the fixed electricity demand and any shiftable load moved to
the given hour (EDSM,h) minus any produced electricity (ep) from
the PV panel. The installed PV capacity (ppv) is here exogenously
given and set to reflect a range of different array sizes (see the cases
below). If PV electricity generation exceeds the level of electricity
use during any given hour the surplus electricity is sold to the grid
(Esold,h).
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the investment cost for PV
installations is divided into two parts; 1) the cost for the PV panel,
including the costs of other system components (e.g., wiring) and
installation; and 2) the inverter cost [12].

Table 1
Inputs and outputs used in the modeling.

Input Output

cpan Investment cost of PV system excl. inverter, V/kW Ctot Total yearly electricity cost for a household, V
cinv Investment cost of inverter, V/kW Epur,h Amount of electricity bought during a time step, kWh
ypan Lifetime of PV-panel, years Esold,h Amount of electricity sold during a time step, kWh
yinv Lifetime of inverter, years EDR,h Amount of load shifted to an hour, kWh
i Discount rate
m Maintenance coefficient, percentage of investment cost
ppv Installed PV capacity, kW
ep Produced PV electricity during a time step, kWh
npur,h Grid fee, V/kWh
nsold,h Grid income, V/kWh
spur,h Price of bought electricity, V/kWh
ssold,h Price of sold electricity, V/kWh
k Electricity tax, V/kWh
r Renewable energy certificate, V/kWh
172 E. Nyholm et al. / Renewable Energy 108 (2017) 169e178
2.2.1. Demand response
In addition to a set of technical constraints, which are
application-specific, loads that are assumed to be suitable for
shifting are divided into two groups: appliance loads and hydronic
loads. The appliance loads consist of electricity use associated with
dishwashers, washing machines, dryers, refrigerators, and freezers.
The hydronic loads include tap-water heating and hydronic space
heating.
It is assumed that appliance loads have the possibility to be
shifted for a certain time without causing a significant impact on
the service provided. The discrete nature of the use of dishwashers,
washing machines, and dryers is handled by binary variables for
these appliances, together with constraints on when cycles need to
have finished. For dryers, we have for simplicity assumed that the
drying cycle occurs right after the hour of a washing cycle, which
enables the use of the same machine and thereby makes the
transition from washing to drying independent of human
interaction.
Refrigerators and freezers have the ability to store thermal en-
ergy using pre-cooling to temperatures lower than are required in
the appliance and can thereby avoid the need to run compressors
during periods of high electricity cost. The technical limitations of
this option are obviously determined by the thermal properties of
the appliance and the allowable temperature range. Here, we have
assumed that refrigerators and freezers have the possibility to
move loads from one hour to the preceding or succeeding closest
hour.
For modeling the shifting of electric hot tap-water heating and
hydronic space heating, a water storage tank that can be used for
energy storage is assumed. Hot water demand in each time-step is
provided exogenously to the model and is served by modeling the
energy balance of the hot-water tank. The hot-water tank energy
balance includes the electric energy supply, hot-water use, losses to
the surroundings, and the allowed temperature interval. A differ-
entiated capacity for heating power is assumed to depend on
whether the household uses electricity exclusively for hot tap-
water heating (7 of the 21 households) or for hot tap-water and
hydronic space heating (14 of the 21 households). The heating
power is assumed to be variable, i.e., it can operate at anywhere
between zero and full capacity. Depending on the household the
hydronic space heating system is either in the form of a heat pump
(6 of the 14 households) or in the form of an electric heater (8 of the
14 households).
2.3. Indicators
To analyze households with different electricity demands on the
same basis, the PV size setup is based on the Array-to-Load Ratio
(ALR) [18]. The ALR is defined as the rated peak power of the
installed PV panel divided by the mean load (in watts) during a
certain time period. The time period used in the present work is 1
year. However, a modified version of ALR is used where the mean
load is calculated using the hours of demand that coincide with the
hours of PV electricity production. This ALR is used to avoid over-
sized panels for households with a high demand for electric space
heating. Thus, using ALR enables comparisons of the results from
houses with significantly different demands for electricity (in ab-
solute terms). A range of different ALRs (and thereby different PV
sizes) are investigated (0e6) as the size of the PV system is crucial
to the impact DR can have on the economics of a PV installation.
Fig. 2 shows the share of the households annual demand that is met
by the PV installations at different ALRs (the bars represent the 25th
and 75th percentiles, the whiskers indicating the range of values).
The levels of profitability of the different measures are indicated
as cost savings in terms of the percentages of annual electricity cost.
Fig. 2. The share of the households annual electricity demand met by the PV in-
stallations at different ALRs. The bars represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, the
whiskers indicating the range of values seen for different households.
2.4. Investigated cases and assumptions
In the assessment of the solar PV generation profiles the panels
are assumed to be south-facing and to be tilted at an angle of 27.
The PV panel technology is assumed to be crystalline silicon [for
further details, see Ref. [30]].
The cost calculations for the analyzed houses are adapted to the
current Swedish situation with respect to market setup and current
policy measures. In Sweden, the cost of purchasing household
electricity is divided into the electricity cost (based on the whole-
sale market price), a distribution grid fee, and an energy tax, as well
as value added tax. Only the electricity dependent grid fee is
considered. Four different pricing schemes for buying and selling
electricity from/to the grid are investigated. Of which two allow for
some form of DR and two do not. The four schemes are:
 The Monthly scheme: A monthly flat rate per unit of electricity
for both bought and sold electricity. However, the electricity
balance is still determined on an hourly basis, i.e., the consumer
pays for the hourly net consumption or gets payed for the hourly
net generation with a monthly flat rate.
 The Hourly scheme: An hourly rate per unit of electricity for
bought and sold electricity. Similarly to the monthly scheme the
electricity balance is determined on an hourly basis although
with an hourly rate and thereby allows for DR.
 The Tax reduction scheme: A tax reduction scheme using the
same setup as the Hourly scheme, and thereby allowing for DR,
but with an additional tax reduction in the form of a tax credit.
The reduction is V0.069/kWh for the electricity sold to the grid
and thereby increase the value of sold electricity with the same
amount.
 The Net metering scheme: A monthly net metering scheme
where the electricity meter runs forward when electricity is
being drawn from the grid and backwards when electricity from
the PV-system is fed to the grid. During a month with net
consumption, the consumer pays for the net consumption
whilst during months with net generation the consumer is
reimbursed for the monthly net generation. The price paid
during months when the consumer is a net consumer and the
per unit electricity reimbursement received during months
 E. Nyholm et al. / Renewable Energy 108 (2017) 169e178 173

when the consumer is a net generator is the same as the elec- Table 3
tricity price used for the monthly electricity scheme. Economic and technical input data used in the model.

Parameter
There is price add-on on the buying price and a price deduction Total investment cost of PV system V2300/kWap
on the selling price in addition to the hourly and monthly prices Investment cost of Inverter 13% of total investment costb
used. The add-on and the deduction are applied to all the pricing Panel, BoS, and installation Cost 87% of total investment costb
schemes presented above. In the case of the net metering scheme Yearly operation and maintenance cost 0.17% of investment cost per yearb
Lifetime of PV panel 25 yearsb
the price add-on is applied during months with net consumption
Lifetime of inverter 15 yearsb
and the price deduction is applied to months with net generation. Heat storage efficiency 99% per hourc
The values of the add-on and deduction are given in Table 3. In Discount rate 2.5%d
addition, a payment is received from the grid owner for any elec- VAT rate 25%e
tricity fed to the grid with the level of reimbursement per kWh Electricity tax V0.0417/kWhe
Maximum heating power 9 kW (SH), 3 kW(HW)f
shown in Table 3. There is also the possibility to participate in a Size of heat storage 10.2 kWh (SH), 5.8 kWh (HW)g
renewable certificate scheme, as assumed in this study. Certificates Distribution grid fee V0.0345/kWhh
are acquired for the first 15 years of the installation in accordance Renewable electricity certificate V0.029/kWhi
with Swedish rules and are sold at an assumed market value, see Deduction from selling price V0.0046/kWhj
Network income V0.0064/kWhj,k
Table 3. The energy dependent grid fee is paid on all electricity that
Price add-on V0.0046/ikkWhj
is fed from the grid to the household irrespective of the pricing Tax reduction V0.069/kWh
scheme applied. a
[19,20,22].
The household electricity demands and profiles applied are b
[12].
exogenously given as input to the model (see Fig. 1). This input is c
[28].
d
derived from the above-mentioned study of the 21 households. For Current and historical 5-year mortgage rates in Sweden [33,34].
e
each household, the study measured the electricity consumption of [26].
f
SH, space heating; HW, hot water.
the appliances and heating systems over 1 year with a time reso- g
[28].
lution of 10 min (aggregated to 1 h). The results of the measure- h
[38].
ments are used to formulate assumptions related to the shiftable i
[42] The quota share, i.e., demand for certificates, will peak in 2019. However,
loads, as applied in this study. The appliance load cycle demand future values are highly dependent upon the penetration of renewable production.
j
may differ from time to time, although the variations are minor; for [11].
k
Network income constitutes the amount in V/kWh the electricity producer re-
modeling purposes, this study uses the average load cycle for each ceives from the grid owners for the electricity fed into their grid.
appliance in each household in the calculations. Table 2 lists the
range of energy use in total and per load cycle, as well as the cycle
duration for each appliance included in this study. The size of the in the households and the electricity price. The electricity price in
load cycles can be compared to the average hourly load of the the Nord Pool Spot market in Year 2007 was on average V34/MWh
households, 0.52e3.45 kWh, i.e., the cycle demand constitutes a (25% lower than the 10 year average). In order to capture the impact
considerable share of the average hourly load in a household. of a higher electricity price this study includes calculations with an
However, in terms of yearly electricity demand the appliance loads electricity price vector from Year 2010, when the annual average
constitute a smaller share, as can be seen from comparing the price for electricity was V65/MWh (45% higher than the 10 year
values in Table 2 to the range in annual electricity demand: 3400- average). The higher average price is both due to 2010 being a
28,000 kWh/year. The maximum shifting timeframe for the dish- relatively dry year for Swedish hydropower, i.e. lower hydropower
washers, washing machines and dryers is 24 h, i.e. the starting of generation, and being a cold year, i.e. higher electricity demand.
the load can be postponed up to 24 h. However, if there is a need to The Swedish power generation mix has not fundamentally changed
operate the load earlier than at the end of the shifting timeframe since 2007 and thus the prices and intra-day variations in prices
then the load is activated. Thus, if the allowed shifting timeframe seen for the two chosen years, 2010 and 2007, should be repre-
for a dishwasher is 24 h but there is a need in the household to run sentative of the current electricity price structure in Sweden. To
the dishwasher an additional time after for example 12 h, the investigate the impact of larger intra-day variations in the elec-
shifting time becomes 12 h. tricity price, calculations were also made with a German price
The electricity price data are taken as the spot prices in the Nord vector (with larger diurnal variations and already influenced to
Pool Spot market, corresponding to the hourly and monthly prices some extent by intermittent energy sources) for Year 2010. The
in the Swedish electricity market for Year 2007 [29], which corre- annual average price for electricity in the German system in Year
sponded to the year of the household load measurement campaign 2010 was V43/MWh [40]. For the cost of DR [35] have suggested an
by the Swedish Energy Agency. The use of electricity prices from initial additional annualized cost of V2.5eV6.0 per appliance,
the year corresponding to the year of the household measurements which should drop to V0.2eV1.2 per appliance as the market ma-
allows for capturing of possible correlations between electricity use tures. In this present study a value of V2.5 per appliance is used.

Table 2
Cycle demands, durations, and yearly available energy levels of DR loads used in the present work. The indicated ranges represent the differences between different
households.

Load Cycle demand, kWh Cycle duration time, hours Yearly electricity demand, kWh

Dishwasher 0.67e1.77 2 70e720

Washing machine 0.71e1.64 1 62e350
Dryer 0.89e2.09 1 50e310
Fridge and Freezer (Aggregated) 0.04e0.31 (hourly load) 1 400e1400
Hydronic space heating Continuous Continuous 8000e17500
Tap-water heating Continuous Continuous 1600e3100
174 E. Nyholm et al. / Renewable Energy 108 (2017) 169e178

Additional economic and technical data used as inputs to the household, indicated by the whiskers, with some households not
modeling are listed in Table 3, with all the costs in V2012. showing a break-even ALR for the hourly pricing scheme. The range
for the ‘No DR measure’ with hourly pricing, as well as for the two
2.4.1. Investigated cases DR measures is 2 ALR points, while for the tax reduction and net
For each household, the following four DR scenarios are metering cases it is 3.0e3.5. The lowest ALR corresponds to a
modeled: household with electric space heating and the highest ALR belongs
to a house without any electric heating. It should be noted that not
 Without any DR e No DR all the houses with electrical heating are in the lower ALR range.
 With DR of washing machines, dishwashers, freezer and re- The wide range of ALRs is due to the high sensitivity of the break-
frigerators e Appliance DR even ALR to the amount of electricity used for self-consumption.
 With DR of the hydronic heating load e Hydronic DR The values shown here are dependent upon the households
 With DR of both appliances and hydronic heating load e Hy- receiving RECs of V0.029/kWh. If this support were to be removed,
dronic DR and Appliance DR. the break-even ALRs for hourly price, Appliance DR, and Hydronic
DR would be zero.
Table 4 provides an outline of the cases investigated. In addition,
each case includes calculations of six different ALRs: 0, 0.5, 1.5, 3.0, 3.2. Optimal sizes and the impacts of the investigated parameters
4.5, and 6.0. The aggregated results are given as the median value
for the 21 investigated households. As a base case for PV invest- Fig. 4 shows how the savings as shares of annual household
ment, the following assumptions are made: PV investment cost of electricity bill (i.e., savings relative to money spent buying elec-
V2300/kWp; discount rate of 2.5%; lifespan of 25 years; REC price of tricity from the grid at an hourly rate) are dependent upon the ALR:
V29/MWh; and the electricity price in Sweden in Year 2007. The Fig. 4a gives the median savings for different DR measures and
fairly low discount rate used is based on the current mortgage rates pricing schemes for Year 2007; Fig. 4b gives the range of savings for
in Sweden. The use of the mortgage rate is reasonable since the PV the investigated households for different ALRs, but without DR, for
installation increase the value of the house. the tax reduction and net metering schemes (the bars represent the
25th and 75th percentiles, the whiskers indicating the range of
3. Results values).
As is evident from the upper dashed line in Fig. 4a, the median
3.1. Cost of electricity and break-even size of PV installations optimal ALR for a household with net metering is 3.0, which results
in a median PV size of 4.2 kWp (range, 1.5e9.4 kWp depending on
Fig. 3a shows the annual electricity cost during Year 2007 for all the household). This is the ALR that generates the greatest savings
households when there is no investment in PV panels. Fig. 3b shows and thus represents the most likely size of an installation assuming
the median and range for the break-even ALR for the Swedish year that the specific pricing scheme is implemented. The median
2007, i.e., the ALR at which the annual electricity cost combined annual saving for a household at optimal ALR would be V35.
with the annualized PV cost is equal to the annual electricity cost However, the level of monetary savings obviously varies greatly
when not investing in PV panels, for five of the investigated pricing depending on the household. To ensure that an ALR of 3 would be
schemes. The yearly electricity cost is in the range of V620eV4050/ economically worthwhile given an hourly pricing scheme (dotted
year, with the upper end of the range corresponding to houses with line), a reduction in the investment cost for the PV system of
electric space heating and the lower end to houses without electric approximately V350/kWp is needed. The tax reduction and both
space or hot-water heating. As shown in Fig. 3b, all the studied Hydronic DR measures show a lower optimal ALR, with a median
cases have a median ALR greater than zero, indicating that in- value of 1.5, resulting in a median PV size of 2.1 kWp (range,
vestments in PV are profitable irrespective of the pricing scheme. 0.8e4.7 kWp). The lowest optimal ALR for hourly pricing, monthly
However, the break-even ALR varies depending upon the pricing, and Appliance DR is 0.5, which results in a median size of
0.7 kWp (range, 0.3e1.6 kWp).
The differences in break-even and optimal ALR values observed
Table 4 between the measures (DR, net metering, tax reduction; see Fig. 4a)
The different combinations of pricing scheme, DR measures, pricing structure, PV
are determined by the value that each measure assigns to excess
system investment cost, discount rate, and REC price used as inputs to the modeling.
electricity generation. The small difference between measures with
Pricing scheme DR measure Price structure low ALRs (0e0.5) is because PV-generated electricity is self-
Hourly Appliance Sweden, 2007 consumed within this range of ALRs. Thus, there are no differ-
Sweden, 2010 ences between the measures except if they apply an hourly or
Germany, 2010
monthly pricing scheme, although the impact of this is small (albeit
Hydronic Sweden, 2007
Hydronic and Appliance Sweden, 2007 not necessarily true for every household). As the ALR increases the
Sweden, 2010 excess electricity generation increases in parallel, and differences in
Germany, 2010 break-even and optimal ALRs between the measures appear. Owing
None Sweden, 2007 to the lower value of excess generation, lower savings are initially
Sweden, 2010
Germany, 2010
seen for the tax reduction scheme, as compared with the net
Tax Reduction Hydronic Sweden, 2007 metering or Hydronic DR schemes. However, as all excess genera-
None Sweden, 2007 tion is compensated for in the tax reduction scheme savings exhibit
Sweden, 2010 a fairly linear curve with increasing ALR (see Fig. 4a). As a result, the
Germany, 2010
impact from tax reduction relative to the other cases increases with
Monthly None Sweden, 2007
Sweden, 2010 increasing ALR. Furthermore, this means that a change in any other
German, 2010 parameter, e.g., PV price or REC price, influences the break-even
Net metering None Sweden, 2007 and optimal ALRs for the tax reduction scheme to a greater
Sweden, 2010 extent than for the other schemes. For net metering, a more pro-
Germany, 2010
nounced curve is seen, resulting in smaller impacts on the optimal
 E. Nyholm et al. / Renewable Energy 108 (2017) 169e178 175

a b

Fig. 3. Annual electricity costs for all the investigated households (a). b shows the median and range values for the break-even ALR, the ALR at which the annual electricity cost
combined with the annualized PV cost is equal to the annual electricity cost when not investing in PV panels, for cases with no DR and hourly prices, Appliance DR, Hydronic DR, Tax
reduction, and Net metering. All the cases have a PV investment cost of V2300/kWp, discount rate of 2.5%, lifespan of 25 years, REC price of V29/MWh, and the electricity price in
force in Sweden during 2007.

a b

Fig. 4. Savings in shares of total household electricity bill (i.e., savings achieved relative to simply buying electricity from the grid at an hourly rate) for different DSM and pricing
measures at ALRs of 0e6 for three different electricity pricing structures. (a) Sweden in 2007; (b) the savings for the different households (without DR) with tax reduction and net
metering, with the bars representing the 25th and 75th percentiles and the whiskers indicating the range of values for Sweden in 2007.

and break-even ALRs if any other parameter is changed. The pro-
nounced curvature observed and the decrease in savings seen for
the scheme at ALRs >3 is due to the fact that monthly electricity
generation starts to exceed monthly use during the summer
months (Swedish conditions). This results in a net sale of electricity
during these months, for which the value of excess generated
electricity corresponds to the wholesale market price, which is
substantially lower than the retail price for electricity. This is
obviously dependent upon that the electricity offset occurs on a
monthly basis; if a yearly basis is used, the benefit of net metering
will be greater. It should be noted that for 20 of the 21 households,
the maximum power fed to the electricity grid at an ALR of 6 is
lower than the maximum power fed from the grid to the
household.
For the DR measures, the shapes of the curves are dependent
upon the abilities of the measures to shift loads to hours of excess
176 E. Nyholm et al. / Renewable Energy 108 (2017) 169e178
generation, and thereby increase the value of the generated elec-
tricity. It is clear from Fig. 4a that the Appliance DR only increases
the optimal and break-even ALRs to a small degree, whilst a larger
impact is seen for the Hydronic DR. This is because the amount of
shiftable load is greater relative to the total electricity consumption
for the Hydronic DR measure, so more load can be moved to hours
of excesses generation. The impact of Hydronic DR on the tax
reduction case is smaller than the impact achieved when only an
hourly electricity price is used. This is evidenced by the smaller
increase in savings between the tax reduction without DR and the
tax reduction with Hydronic DR, as compared with the increase in
savings between the hourly price without DR and the Hydronic DR
case. This occurs because the value of an increase in self-
consumption is lowered by V0.069/kWh. Furthermore, it can be
seen that savings between 0% and 0.5% of the annual electricity bill,
depending on the DR case, are present at an ALR of 0, i.e., part of the
savings reached through combining a PV panel and DR can be
reached through DR alone.
As shown in Figs. 3b and 4b, there is a range of break-even and
optimal ALRs that corresponds to the different households inves-
tigated. The magnitude of this range reflects the pricing scheme
used and whether or not DR is applied. In Fig. 4b, the ALR ranges for
tax reduction and net metering are shown, as they represent the
two extremes in terms of the differences between households. For
the tax reduction measure, it can be seen that the difference in
savings between households is small for a given ALR owing to the
small difference in value between sold electricity and electricity
used for self-consumption. For net metering, Fig. 4b shows that the
difference between households increases with increasing ALR
because as the installed capacity grows, generation becomes more
skewed towards the summer season resulting in increased excess
generation during these months. As capacity grows more rapidly
for households with hydronic space heating for a given increase in
ALR (due to their larger load), the excess generation for these
households becomes larger.
Fig. 5 also shows how the savings as shares of annual household
electricity bill (i.e., savings relative to money spent buying elec-
tricity from the grid at an hourly rate) are dependent upon the ALR:
5a and 5b show the median savings for different DR measures and
pricing schemes for the Swedish electricity price in Year 2010 and
a b
Fig. 5. Savings in shares of total household electricity bill (i.e., savings achieved relative to simply buying electricity from the grid at an hourly rate) for different DSM and pricing
measures at ALRs of 0e6 for three different electricity pricing structures. (a) Sweden in 2010; and (b) Germany in 2010.
the German electricity price in Year 2010, respectively. Fig. 5a re-
veals that the optimal and break-even ALRs are increased sub-
stantially for all cases in which Swedish Year 2010 electricity prices
are employed, this is due to the higher electricity price (average of
V65/MWh (2010), compared to V34/MWh (2007)). Furthermore,
the tax reduction scheme is now showing the highest optimal ALR.
The annual savings for a given ALR increases for all pricing and DR
cases. However, the differences between cases are approximately
the same as for the 2007 price year, indicating that the effect of
pricing scheme is indifferent to the electricity price level. The one
exception to this indifference is the higher level of saving seen at an
ALR of 0 for Hydronic DR, as compared to the Swedish electricity
prices in Year 2007, which is due to load being shifted from hours of
high electricity price to hours of low electricity price. As a result,
there is a greater increase in the optimal and break-even ALRs for
the Hydronic DR compared with the other DR measures and pricing
schemes.
In the case of the Year 2010 price in Germany, the optimal and
break-even ALRs also increase for all the DR measures (Fig. 5b). This
increase is attributed to a somewhat higher average price
compared to the Swedish Year 2007 case coupled with larger
diurnal price variations, for which the peak-price hours coincide
with electricity production from PV. Similar to the Swedish Year
2010 conditions, the Hydronic DR benefits from load being shifted
from high electricity price hours to low electricity price hours. Due
to the diurnal variation, there is also a benefit for all the schemes
that use an hourly electricity price, since the electricity usage cor-
relates to a greater extent with the lower-priced hours during a
diurnal period, while the opposite is true for the PV-generated
electricity.
4. Discussion
The extent to which each investigated DR measure supports the
installation of distributed PV depends on both the ability of the
measure to lower costs and the capacity of the building stock to
apply the measure. There are presently about two million single-
family houses in Sweden, all of which have the theoretical possi-
bility of implementing any pricing scheme or Appliance DR [41].
Around 300,000 Swedish households have hydronic systems that
 E. Nyholm et al. / Renewable Energy 108 (2017) 169e178
could make use of hydronic DR measures for space heating and hot
water, with a further 300,000 households having direct electric
heating, indicating that DR of the hot water load is available.
As of 2015, the hourly pricing scheme and tax reduction scheme
are available to Swedish households, whereas net metering has
been ruled out because it was deemed to be incompatible with EU
legislation [1]. Although net metering in the present work gener-
ates some of the highest savings, as well as the highest optimal ALR,
applying the measure implies that the hourly variations in the
electricity price are ignored. This removes any incentive for con-
sumers to respond to short-term fluctuations in price, i.e., there are
no incentives to utilize DR, which in turn removes a possible tool
for the integration of intermittent renewables. Therefore, other
methods for incentivizing DR, which are decoupled from retail
electricity prices, will be required, e.g., demand bidding [36]. In
contrast, the tax reduction scheme does not remove the incentive
for DR, as the electricity price difference during different hours
remains. However, when shifting hydronic loads, which result in
increased demand (increased losses), the narrowing of the price
difference between sold and bought electricity will lower the
incentive for shifting. The higher sensitivity in terms of optimal ALR
for the tax reduction scheme implies that it is likely to become
more attractive than the net metering scheme as the PV market
moves forward with lower investment costs.
Economic incentives for implementing Appliance DR are shown
to be low even with the generous shifting time of up to 24 h applied
in the present study [23]. suggested that most people would
consider moving loads by at least 4 h, albeit with variations
depending on the appliance. Applying such short shifting times
would further reduce the viability of Appliance DR. However, there
might be other benefits (related to the electricity provider and/or
distribution system operator) associated with load shifting, such as
the avoidance of voltage fluctuations in distribution grids for which
Appliance DR could be employed. Such issues will not be captured if
shifting is based solely on the electricity spot prices, which means
that other types of incentives would have to be implemented in
order to get households to respond.
The greater impacts on optimal and break-even ALR observed
for Hydronic DR compared to Appliance DR are linked to the fact
that Hydronic DR does not require any behavioral changes from the
households, which should make it a promising DR measure.
Although Hydronic DR only applies to a limited amount of house-
holds, it could become an important niche market or area for
demonstration for smart homes. However, the process of replacing
old boilers with smart boilers for Hydronic DR will take a consid-
erable time, as it cannot be expected that customers will prema-
turely replace their boilers with a new boiler with DR capabilities.
Unless existing boilers can be easily retrofitted with regulating
equipment, the need for new investments in boilers reduces the
impact that rapid implementation of DR programs might have. It
should be noted that although DR may not become a significant
driver of increased investment in PV, it may help to promote future
DR investments through increasing the value of a smart system.
The level of future electricity prices will obviously have a major
impact on the value of investing in PV. Swedish prices for electricity
are highly dependent upon whether the yearly average tempera-
ture has been low (resulting in high heating demand, driving prices
up) or there has been much rainfall (resulting in filled water res-
ervoirs, pushing prices down). However, any scenario in which
climate change mitigation is successfully addressed must most
likely result in an increase in European electricity prices due to
internalization of the cost of carbon emissions [39]. This should also
affect Swedish prices in the deregulated market, depending of
course on the levels of investment in transmission capacity to
continental Europe and the future of Swedish nuclear power. Thus,
177
it is likely that future prices will be higher, thereby justifying the
use of a higher electricity price when calculating the value of an
investment. A future with a high degree of intermittent power will
most probably result in electricity prices becoming more volatile
than they are today. If such a system has a substantial proportion of
electricity from solar PV power, the value of the electricity that is
offset by PV production in the households will be lower, as this
production will coincide with low electricity prices, thereby
lowering the value of the system. However, such fluctuations would
also increase the value of DR measures, as the difference in price
from hours shifted to and from would increase. The shape of the
fluctuations will also be important. For example, fluctuations on a
weekly basis will not benefit from Appliance DR at all and heat
storage will require sufficiently large storage capacity and price
variation to make Hydronic DR viable over such a timeframe.
It should be noted that some of the assumptions made in the
modeling have effects on both the potential for scaling up the re-
sults and comparing between measures. As mentioned above, this
work assumes that PV panels are only installed on south-facing
roofs. A reduction in output because a fraction of the PV panels
will also be installed in less-favorable orientations would reduce
the number of electricity generation hours and skew the generation
profile. This will influence the optimal and break-even ALR,
although it should not influence the relative difference between the
DR measures. However, the skewing of the production profile could
affect the shifting of DR loads, although such an effect is likely to be
relatively minor.
The results presented in this work are generated under the
assumption that the shifting of loads has no effect on the market
price of electricity. This is valid if the market penetration levels of
solar PV and DR are low. However, if a substantial percentage of
Swedish households start to shift their hydronic loads the price of
electricity may decrease, making the shifting of load less profitable.
In the present study, we use 21 actual house demand profiles,
which varied considerably in terms of electricity demand and
which should therefore give a reliable picture of how electricity is
used in reality. However, 21 households is a rather small sample, so
the results presented may not be representative of the Swedish
household sector as a whole.
5. Conclusions
The impacts of different DR measures, pricing schemes, and
electricity price on investments in distributed PV are investigated
for Swedish market conditions using a techno-economic optimi-
zation model on 21 Swedish buildings. The model includes the DRs
of appliances and hydronic loads.
We show that under the given Swedish conditions and with an
annual average electricity price of V34/MWh, implementation of a
monthly net metering scheme gives the highest optimal ALR at a
value of 3.0, resulting in a median rated capacity of 4.2 kWp/
household, and the highest break-even ALR at a value of 4.5. The tax
reduction scheme, which has been implemented in Sweden in Year
2015, shows somewhat lower ALR values, with an optimal value of
1.5, median rated capacity of 2.1 kWp/household, and a break-even
value of 4.0. However, net metering would remove the incentive for
consumers to become active in the electricity market, which is seen
as one possible important option to large-scale employment of
intermittent renewable electricity generation. Thus, net metering
would hinder the implementation of DR based on retail pricing,
which means that other DR methods will have to be supported if PV
owners are to be included in a future DR market. In contrast, the
current tax reduction scheme retains the benefit of DR and would
be fairer from a market perspective compared to a net metering
scheme as sold electricity is valued at market price. However, even
178 E. Nyholm et al. / Renewable Energy 108 (2017) 169e178
if the incentive for DR is retained the value of shifting of hydronic
loads is reduced, since the value of an increase in self-consumption
is lowered. Furthermore, the impacts on optimal and break-even
ALR of changes in electricity price or reductions in investment
cost are shown to be much higher for the tax reduction scheme
than for the other investigated pricing schemes. For the investi-
gated cases the tax reduction scheme also shows the lowest
amount of variance in optimal and break-even ALR between
households.
We also show that the DR of hydronic loads results in an optimal
ALR of 1.5 and a break-even ALR of 2.1. However, the number of
households with the possibility to implement Hydronic DR is
limited, reducing the impact of such implementation on a national
scale. The other investigated DR measure, Appliance DR, shows a
low potential for increasing the value of a PV investment, since the
levels of electricity in appliances that can be shifted intra-day is low
compared to the levels of daily solar PV surplus production.
Acknowledgment
This work is financed by the Chalmers-E.ON initiative and the
research program Pathways to Sustainable European Energy
Systems.
References
[1] R. Bohlin, Beskattning av mikroproducerad El m.m, 2013.
[2] S. Borenstein, Electricity Rate Structures and the Economics of Solar PV: Could
Mandatory Time-of-use Rates Undermine California's Solar Photovoltaic
Subsidies?, 2007.
[3] J.E. Burns, J.-S. Kang, Comparative economic analysis of supporting policies for
residential solar PV in the United States: solar Renewable Energy Credit
(SREC) potential, Energy Policy 44 (2012) 217e225.
[4] A. Campoccia, L. Dusonchet, E. Telaretti, G. Zizzo, Comparative analysis of
different supporting measures for the production of electrical energy by solar
PV and Wind systems: four representative European cases, Sol. Energy 83
(2009) 287e297.
[5] A. Campoccia, L. Dusonchet, E. Telaretti, G. Zizzo, An analysis of feed’in tariffs
for solar PV in six representative countries of the European Union, Sol. Energy
107 (2014) 530e542.
[6] M. Castillo-Cagigal, E. Caaman ~ o-Martín, E. Matallanas, D. Masa-Bote,
A. Gutierrez, F. Monasterio-Huelin, J. Jime nez-Leube, PV self-consumption
optimization with storage and Active DSM for the residential sector, Sol. En-
ergy 85 (2011) 2338e2348.
[7] N.R. Darghouth, G. Barbose, R. Wiser, The impact of rate design and net
metering on the bill savings from distributed PV for residential customers in
California, Energy Policy 39 (2011) 5243e5253.
[8] W. De Soto, S. Klein, W. Beckman, Improvement and validation of a model for
photovoltaic array performance, Sol. energy 80 (2006) 78e88.
[9] J.A. Duffie, W.A. Beckman, Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, John Wiley
& Sons, 2013.
[10] L. Dusonchet, E. Telaretti, Economic analysis of different supporting policies
for the production of electrical energy by solar photovoltaics in western Eu-
ropean Union countries, Energy Policy 38 (2010) 3297e3308.
[11] E.ON. Våra eln€ atsabonnemang fo €r dig som mikroproducent, Accessed: 2017
20 February https://www.eon.se/privat/for-hemmet/din-elanslutning/ersatt-
ning-och-avgifter.html.
[12] A. Goodrich, T. James, M. Woodhouse, Residential, commercial, and utility-
scale photovoltaic (PV) system prices in the United States: current drivers
and cost-reduction opportunities, Contract 303 (2012) 275e3000.
[13] L. Hansen, V. Lacy, D. Glick, A Review of Solar PV Benefit & Cost Studies, Rocky
Mountain Institute, Boulder, CO, 2013.
[14] T. Huld, G. Friesen, A. Skoczek, R.P. Kenny, T. Sample, M. Field, E.D. Dunlop,
A power-rating model for crystalline silicon PV modules, Sol. Energy Mater.
Sol. Cells 95 (2011) 3359e3369.
[15] M. Iqbal, An Introduction to Solar Radiation, Access Online via Elsevier, 1983.
[17] D.L. King, J.A. Kratochvil, W.E. Boyson, Photovoltaic array Performance model,
Department of Energy, United States, 2004.
[18] M. Kolhe, Techno-economic optimum sizing of a stand-alone solar photo-
voltaic system, Energy Convers. IEEE Trans. 24 (2009) 511e519.
[19] C. Kost, J.N. Mayer, J. Thomsen, N. Hartmann, C. Senkpiel, S. Philipps, S. Nold,
S. Lude, N. Saad, T. Schlegl, Levelized Cost of Electricity Renewable Energy
Technologies, Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, 2013.
[20] J. Lindahl, National Survey Report of PV Power Applications in SWEDEN 2013,
IEA-PVPS, 2014.
[21] J. Lindahl, National Survey Report of PV Power Applications in SWEDEN 2014,
IEA-PVPS/Uppsala University/Swedish Energy Agency, 2015.
[22] R. Margolis, C. Coggeshall, J. Zuboy, Sunshot Vision Study, US Dept. of Energy,
2012.
[23] W. Mert, J. Suschek-Berger, W. Tritthart, Consumer acceptance of smart ap-
pliances. Smart Domestie Appliances in Sustainable Energy Systems (Smart-
A), 2008.
[24] A. Mills, R. Wiser, G. Barbose, W. Golove, The impact of retail rate structures
on the economics of commercial photovoltaic systems in California, Energy
Policy 36 (2008) 3266e3277.
[25] Ministry of Enterprise, E.a.C, Lag Om Elcertifikat, 2011.
[26] Ministry of Finance, Lag Om Skatt På Energi, 1994.
[27] Ministry of Finance, Budgetpropositionen fo € r 2015, in: Finansdepartementet,
2014.
[28] NIBE, Hur stora € ar v€
armefo€ rlusterna från en varmvattenberedare?, Accessed:
2014 26 Nov http://www.nibe.se/Produkter/FAQ-bas/Fraga-3/.
[29] Nordpool spot, Electricity prices for Sweden, Accessed: 2013 June http://
www.nordpoolspot.com.
[30] Z. Norwood, E. Nyholm, T. Otanicar, F. Johnsson, A geospatial comparison of
distributed solar heat and power in Europe and the US. PloS one 9 (2014)
e112442.
[31] H.S. Oliva, I. MacGill, Value of net-FiT PV policies for different electricity in-
dustry participants considering demand-side response, Prog. Photovolt. Res.
Appl. 22 (2014) 838e850.
[32] A. Poullikkas, A comparative assessment of net metering and feed in tariff
schemes for residential PV systems, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 3
(2013) 1e8.
[33] SBAB, 2014 mortgage rates for Sweden, Accessed: 2014 28 Nov https://www.
sbab.se/1/privat/vara_rantor.html.
[34] SEB, Historical mortgage rates for Sweden, Accessed: 2014 28 Nov http://seb.
se/pow/apps/HistoriskaBorantor/villaframe.aspx.
[35] D. Seebach, C. Timpe, D. Bauknecht, Costs and Benefits of Smart appliances in
Europe, 2009.
[36] B. Shen, G. Ghatikar, Z. Lei, J. Li, G. Wikler, P. Martin, The role of regulatory
reforms, market changes, and technology development to make demand
response a viable resource in meeting energy challenges, Appl. Energy 130
(2014) 814e823.
[37] Statistics Sweden, Omfo €rhandling Och Byten av Elavtal 2013, 2014.
[38] Statistics Sweden, Priser På Elenergi Och På Overf€ €ring av El, 2014.
o
[39] N. Stern, The Economics of Climate Change: the Stern Review, Cambridge
University press, 2007.
[40] The European Energy Exchange, Electricity prices for Germany for the year
2010, Accessed: 2013 November http://www.eex.com/en/market-data/
market-data-download.
[41] The Swedish Energy Agency, Energistatistik Fo €r Småhus 2012, Ener-
gimyndigheten, 2013a.
[42] The Swedish Energy Agency, in: T.S.E. Agency (Ed.), Historisk Utveckling Av
Det Svenska Elcertifikatsystemet, 2013.
[43] The Swedish Energy Agency, Renewable energy certificates in Sweden,
Accessed: 2014 27 Nov http://www.energimyndigheten.se/Foretag/
Elcertifikat/Elproducent/mikroproducent/.
[44] J. Widen, Improved photovoltaic self-consumption with appliance scheduling
in 200 single-family buildings, Appl. Energy 126 (2014) 199e212.
[45] J. Widen, E. Wa €ckelgård, P.D. Lund, Options for improving the load matching
capability of distributed photovoltaics: methodology and application to high-
latitude data, Sol. Energy 83 (2009) 1953e1966.
[46] Y. Yamamoto, Pricing electricity from residential photovoltaic systems: a
comparison of feed-in tariffs, net metering, and net purchase and sale, Sol.
Energy 86 (2012) 2678e2685.
[47] J.P. Zimmermann, End-use metering Campaign in 400 Households in Sweden
Assessment of the Potential Electricity Savings, 2009.