5 Chapter-4 Last-Tawad

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF DATA, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
This chapter presents, interprets and analyzes the data in the study.
4.1 Solar Net Metering Data and Information about BATELEC II prosumers
Consumers of BATELEC II that are involved in this study and have installed net
metered rooftop photovoltaic arrays are located in Rosario, Taysan, and Lipa, Batangas.
Prosumers with installed grid-tied PV systems require a different electrical and tariff
system from the regular consumers. In presenting the evaluationof net metering,
information about the PV array systems installed, energy consumption of the consumers
in the past years and other data related to their electricity is important in order to have a
better understanding of net metering.
4.1.1 Installed Photovoltaic System Parameters
Table 4.1.1.1 shows the gathered information about the PV systems installed in
prosumers’ households including total number of panels, PV system capacity in
kilowatt-peak, inverter rating in kilowatts, and the corresponding installation costs for
each system. Installation months all occurred in the year of 2018.
Table 4.1.1.1
Installed Photovoltaic System Specifications of Customers with Net Metering
Total PV Inverter Month of

Number Installation
Prosumer Location Rating Rating Integration
of Panels Cost (Php)
(kWp) (kW) to Grid
A Rosario 8 1.5 3 200,000 October
B Rosario 20 5 5 350,000 May
C Rosario 20 5 5 300,000 May
D Rosario 8 2.2 3 200,000 June
E Lipa 6 2 1.65 1,000,000 July
F Lipa 12 3 3 300,000 August
G Taysan 8 2 3 350,000 May
H Lipa 14 3.57 3 340,000 February
I Rosario 32 6.5 5.2 800,000 May
J Taysan 8 3 5 1,200,000 May
EVALUATION OF NET METERING UTILIZATION SCHEME OF CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION OF DATA |75
BATANGAS II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (BATELEC II) ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
CUSTOMERS GRID TIED SOLAR SYSTEM
De Guzman, M.A.I., Julongbayan, J.D., Mabini, J.M.A., Mendoza, L.L.T.
Prosumers connected to BATELEC II have photovoltaic array systems that have
capacities ranging from 1.5 to 6.5 kilowatt-peak. Prosumer A has a PV system
consisting of 8 panels, with two sets of four series-connected panels operating in
parallel. Prosumer B has an overall 20 panels installed, with two sets of ten series-
connected panels operating in parallel. Prosumer C has a total of 20 panels installed,
with all of the connected panels operating in series. This series operation caused an
increase in the overall total DC voltage of the system, which then consequently
required an increased capacity of inverter. Prosumer D has a total of 8 panels installed,
with two sets of four series-connected panels operating in parallel. Prosumer E has
six installed PV panels, with two sets of three series-connected panels operating in
parallel. Prosumer F has twelve installed PV panels in total, with two sets of six series-
connected panels connected in parallel. Prosumer G has eight installed PV panels in
total, with two sets of four series-connected panels connected in parallel. Prosumer H
has twelve installed PV panels in total, with two sets of six series-connected panels
connected in parallel.
Inverters are sized with respect to the photovoltaic system capacity. According to
Nigel Morris, one of the foremost solar energy analysts in Australia, sizing of inverters
is a matter of personal preference. An inverter can be oversized to allow for future
expansion of the system. Inverters can also be undersized and operate in overclocking
condition to fully maximise the inverter capacity and save on costs and is also a
reasonable approach. However the engineering and design needs to be spot on or
one can damage the inverter. Typical design rules specifically take this into account
and allows overclocking of up to 30% within guidelines.

4.1.2 Energy Consumption
Energy consumption historical data in kilowatt-hours of the prosumers involved in
the study have been collected from BATELEC II in order to achieve the objectives of
the study. The data included in this part of the chapter involves energy consumption
of the prosumer, mostly from the month of January of year 2015 up to December 2018.
Prosumer J only started their connection to BATELEC II on August 2016, hence the
different historical data presented.
Table 4.1.2.2 shows the energy consumption of prosumer A from January 2015 to
December 2018 appearing on the electric bills.
Table 4.1.2.1
Energy Consumption (kWh) of Prosumer A
(January 2015– December 2018)
Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

January 193 15 34 278
February 25 15 15 262
March 139 15 15 246
April 348 15 15 320
May 166 22 97 311
June 15 15 108 124
July 15 15 669 785
August 15 15 675 652
September 23 15 520 582
October 15 22 420 253
November 15 19 473 272
December 15 15 334 261
Average 82 17 281 362
For the years 2015-2018, the average monthly consumptions of prosumer A were
approximately 82, 17, 281, and 362 kWh as shown in Table 4.1.2.1. From the table, it
can be noticed that the year of 2018 had seen an increase in consumption. From June
2015 to April 2017, the prosumers’ house had no inhabitants, hence the small values.
Table 4.1.2.2 shows the energy consumption of prosumer B from January 2015 to
Table 4.1.2.2
Energy Consumption (kWh) of Prosumer B
Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

January 453 935 661 450
February 401 1,002 575 488
March 355 1,041 711 553
April 411 1,342 810 876
May 487 1,216 1,076 880
June 482 979 1,116 855
July 417 907 855 802
August 694 974 1,160 915
September 931 823 1,017 1,066
October 968 728 658 968
November 1,305 739 839 667
December 1,020 620 461 492
Average 660 942 828 751
For the years 2015-2018, the average monthly consumptions of prosumer B were
660, 942, 828, and 751kWh as shown in Table 4.1.2.2. From the table, it can be
noticed that the year of 2016 had the highest average consumption and the year of
2015 had the lowest average consumption in the last four years.
Table 4.1.2.3 shows the energy consumption of prosumer C from January
2015 to December 2018 appearing on the electric bills.
Table 4.1.2.3
Energy Consumption (kWh) of Prosumer C
Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

January 631 657 608 708
February 991 665 823 839
March 1015 585 574 871
April 534 400 690 753
May 724 659 969 166
Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

June 748 888 1153 203
July 1194 881 830 271
August 1435 1014 859 405
September 1603 457 929 504
October 1103 310 913 424
November 538 569 744 266
December 619 805 499 389
Average 928 658 799 483
For the years 2015-2018, the average monthly consumptions of prosumer C were
approximately 928, 658, 799, and 483 kWh as shown in Table 4.1.2.3. From the table,
it can be noticed that the year of 2015 had the highest average consumption and the
year of 2018 experienced the lowest average consumption in the last four years.
Table 4.1.2.4 shows the energy consumption of prosumer D from January 2015 to
Table 4.1.2.4
Energy Consumption (kWh) of Prosumer D
Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

January 183 237 111 304
February 193 219 206 260
March 257 356 229 284
April 368 556 361 446
May 430 454 313 365
June 370 336 288 227
July 291 368 213 186
August 307 422 295 347
September 281 390 337 299
October 259 453 305 311
November 310 559 304 265
December 573 327 418 212
Average 295 395 269 299
For the years 2015-2018, the average monthly consumptions of prosumer D were
approximately 295, 395, 269 and 299 kWh as shown in Table 4.1.2.4. From the table,
year of 2017 experienced the lowest average energy consumption in the last four
years.
Table 4.1.2.5 shows the energy consumption of prosumer E from January 2015 to
Table 4.1.2.5
Energy Consumption (kWh) of Prosumer E
Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

January 450 654 577 419
February 513 530 551 404
March 673 713 524 593
April 822 851 559 578
May 693 813 663 617
June 911 750 726 659
July 719 739 593 729
August 706 658 634 1020
September 809 653 490 694
October 761 679 617 499
November 648 624 559 474
December 677 739 539 671
Average 699 700 586 613
For the years 2015-2018, the average monthly consumptions of prosumer E were
years.
Table 4.1.2.6 shows the energy consumption of prosumer E from January 2015 to

Table 4.1.2.6
Energy Consumption (kWh) of Prosumer F
Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

January 266 633 536 554
February 161 609 336 483
March 176 566 413 455
April 163 745 734 632
May 249 1155 1239 1028
June 362 786 844 620
July 905 619 760 474
August 801 391 1066 526
September 824 694 810 546
October 505 523 631 440
November 860 590 446 410
December 707 380 484 327
Average 498 641 692 541
For the years 2015-2018, the average monthly consumptions of prosumer F were
years.
Table 4.1.2.7 shows the energy consumption of prosumer G from January 2015 to
Table 4.1.2.7
Energy Consumption (kWh) of Prosumer G
Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

January 1051 1031 709 1397
February 1148 762 583 1137
March 942 963 867 1347
April 990 1291 1282 1962
May 1222 1540 1174 2506
June 1342 1151 1212 1748
July 852 907 989 1358
Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

August 908 906 1519 1642
September 930 1087 2213 1382
October 926 1190 1770 1571
November 1019 966 1578 1977
December 901 705 1291 823
Average 1019 1041 1266 1571
For the years 2015-2018, the average monthly consumptions of prosumer G were
approximately 1019, 1041, 1266 and 1571 kWh as shown in Table 4.1.2.7. From the
table, it can be noticed that the year of 2018 had the highest average consumption
and the year of 2015 experienced the lowest average energy consumption in the last
four years.
Table 4.1.2.8 shows the energy consumption of prosumer H from January 2015 to
Table 4.1.2.8
Energy Consumption (kWh) of Prosumer H
Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

January 1190 1195 1242 1151
February 1082 853 1016 1080
March 837 889 871 1066
April 977 1123 1021 1219
May 1101 1155 1253 1112
June 1114 804 1200 1226
July 1070 1053 1076 1327
August 1009 1015 1349 1477
September 947 1031 1073 1079
October 1159 1041 967 812
November 1110 1014 935 902
December 1313 1044 1122 998
Average 1076 1018 1094 1121
For the years 2015-2018, the average monthly consumptions of prosumer H were
approximately 1076, 1018, 1094 and 1121 kWh as shown in Table 4.1.2.8. From the
table, it can be noticed that the year of 2018 had the highest average consumption
and the year of 2015 experienced the lowest average energy consumption in the last
four years.
Table 4.1.2.9 shows the energy consumption of prosumer I from January 2015 to
Table 4.1.2.9
Energy Consumption (kWh) of Prosumer I
Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

January 62 707 277 325
February 239 674 306 295
March 374 840 315 331
April 535 828 455 669
May 502 704 426 502
June 645 499 438 396
July 484 391 369 336
August 718 414 420 353
September 369 463 393 431
October 435 363 357 404
November 516 371 901 344
December 669 308 303 362
Average 462 547 413 396
For the years 2015-2018, the average monthly consumptions of prosumer I were
years.
Table 4.1.2.10 shows the energy consumption of prosumer J from August 2016 to

Table 4.1.2.10
Energy Consumption (kWh) of Prosumer J
(August 2016– December 2018)
Month 2017 2018
January 423 1,563
February 578 1,225
March 668 1,339
April 1,256 1,452
May 1,258 1,768
June 1,132 1,652
July 1,468 1,236
August 1,582 1,423
September 1,874 1,547
October 1,756 1,670
November 1,945 1,668
December 1,756 1,943
Average 1308 1541
For the years 2017 and 2018, the average monthly consumptions of prosumer J
were approximately 1308 and 1541 kWh as shown in Table 4.1.2.10. Since prosumer
J applied for an electrical connection during late 2016, the researchers will start with
the year 2017 as reference for the study.
4.1.3 Electricity Rates
Electricity rates of BATELEC II for the past four years have been collected
in order to compute for the monthly bill consumption and the avoided cost of the
customers due to net metering. The rates are also used to project the amount of
savings that a prosumer will accumulate over the life span of their photovoltaic system.
The rates are in units of Php/kWh.

Table 4.1.3.1
Electricity Rates Implemented by BATELEC II
Month 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

January 6.8485 11.2259 6.8485 7.9251 7.8837 9.3269
February 8.5568 9.0522 8.5568 8.2703 8.8654 10.0383
March 6.3813 8.7026 9.1967 8.2966 9.0146 10.5202
April 9.0394 10.345 8.118 7.9251 9.2401 10.4274
May 9.7896 10.0833 8.3144 8.1755 9.4032 10.1042
June 9.7811 8.4046 8.6809 7.6265 8.6322 10.1042
July 8.98 8.5608 8.1188 8.1833 8.7478 9.7651
August 8.0415 9.6047 7.92 8.1833 8.7478 10.1329
September 8.4332 8.8879 8.1177 7.9342 8.9843 9.8844
October 9.3544 8.7729 7.7278 7.805 9.2144 9.8893
November 9.1327 8.4693 7.3591 7.6849 7.6849 9.704
December 11.3497 7.6049 7.1505 7.689 7.689 9.7211
Average 8.8074 9.1428 8.0091 7.9749 8.67562 9.9682
Table 4.1.3.1 shows the electricity rates being charged by BATELEC II to
its consumers for the past six years. Electric rates being charged by BATELEC II since
January 2013 have fluctuated over the years, but has seen a steady increase since
2016. The price of electricity reached its peak on March 2018, with the consecutive
months also having prices of approximately Php 10.00 per kWh. Evidently, surges of
rate increase over the past few years illustrate the effects of growing energy demand
in our country and is seen to still increase for the years to come.
4.1.4 Photovoltaic Electricity Output
Electricity generation capability of solar photovoltaic arrays depend on the
installation location. The province of Batangas in particular, receives a generous
amount of sunlight per year, which makes it a viable location for installing photovoltaic
arrays.A number of factors affect output energy ratings, including sun hours and
irradiance received by the country per year. Annual sun hours received by the country
are shown on the figure below.

Figure 4.1.4.1Annual Sun Hours in the Philippines
. Annual sun hours given above are also used by renewable energy companies in
the sizing of solar PV systems. The peak sun hours in Batangas region ranges from
4.5 – 5.0. For basis of calculations, 4.5 hours as peak sun hours (PSH) is used.The
corresponding solar irradiance to be used with the peak sun hours in the calculations
is 1000 W/m2. In this irradiance value, kWh of the solar panel is equal to its kWp rating.
4.2 Analysis of the Secondary Circuits with Grid-tied Solar Home Systems
This part of the chapter will be discussing and analyzing the different prosumers where
grid-tied solar PV system is installed. The parameters to be evaluated in the study are
separated into four namely: average load, peak demand, load factor, and occurrence of
peak demand. Comparison between demands during months of PV operation and the
same months the year before will be done in order to see the difference in seasonal
demands in the most recent years.
4.2.1 Average Demand
Average demand of prosumers involved in the study are presented in the tables
below with the help of the given energy consumption data by BATELEC II.
Table 4.2.1.1 shows the monthly average demand of prosumer A in Watts
during the period of January 2017 to December 2018.
Table 4.2.1.1
Average Demand of Prosumer A in Watts
Month 2017 2018

January 46 374
February 22 390
March 20 331
April 21 444
May 130 418
June 150 172
July 899 1055
August 907 876
September 722 808
October 565 340
November 657 378
December 449 351
Average 382 495
Prosumer A connected their PV system to the grid on October 2018, thus, months
of October to December from the last two years are going to be compared. Without
net metering, for the months of October 2017 to December 2017 the average demands
of prosumer A were approximately 565, 657, and 449 W as shown in Table 4.2.1.1.
From the table, it can be noticed that a year later, after the integration of grid-tied PV
system to the grid, the monthly average demand was greatly lowered to 340, 378, and
351 W on October 2018 to December 2018. Yearly average for 2017 is 382 Watts and
1028 Watts for 495.
Table 4.2.1.2 shows the monthly average demand of prosumer B in Watts
during the period of January 2017 to December 2018.

Table 4.2.1.2
Average Demand of Prosumer B in Watts
Month 2017 2018

January 888 605
February 856 726
March 956 743
April 1125 1217
May 1446 1183
June 1550 1188
July 1149 1078
August 1559 1230
September 1413 1481
October 884 1301
November 1165 926
December 620 661
Average 1134 1028
Prosumer B connected their PV system to the grid on May 2018, thus, months of
May to December from the last two years are going to be compared. Without net
metering, for the months of May 2017 to December 2017 the average demands of
prosumer B were approximately 1446, 1550, 1149, 1559, 1416, 884, 1165, and 620
Watts as shown in Table 4.2.1.2. From the table, it can be noticed that a year after,
with the integration of grid-tied PV system average demands were only reduced in the
months from May to August, with values of 1183, 1188, 1078 and 1230 Watts, and in
November with a value of 926 Watts. Yearly average for 2017 is 1134 Watts and 1028
Watts for 2018.
Table 4.2.1.3 shows the monthly average demand of prosumer C in Watts during
the period of January 2017 to December 2018.

Table 4.2.1.3
Average Demand of Prosumer C in Watts
Month 2017 2018

January 817 952
February 1225 1249
March 772 1171
April 958 1046
May 1302 223
June 1601 282
July 1116 364
August 1155 544
September 1290 700
October 1227 570
November 1033 369
December 671 523
Average 1097 666
For Table 4.2.1.3, we must consider that prosumer C connected their PV system
to the grid on May 2018, thus, months of May to December from the last two years are
going to be compared. Without net metering, for the months of May 2017 to December
2017 the average demands of prosumer C were approximately 1302, 1601, 1116,
1155, 1290, 1227, 1033 and 671 Watts. From the table, it can be noticed that after the
integration of grid-tied PV system to the grid, the monthly average demands were
greatly lowered starting on May 2018 to December 2018, with values of 223, 282, 364,
544, 700, 570, 369, and 523 W respectively. Yearly average for 2017 is 1097 Watts
and 666 Watts for 2018.
Table 4.2.1.4 shows the monthly average demand of prosumer C in Watts during

Table 4.2.1.4
Average Demand of Prosumer D in Watts
Month 2017 2018

January 149 409
February 307 387
March 308 382
April 501 619
May 421 491
June 400 315
July 286 250
August 397 466
September 468 415
October 410 418
November 422 368
December 562 285
Average 386 400
For Table 4.2.1.3, we must consider that prosumer D connected their PV system
to the grid on June 2018, thus, months of June to December from the last two years
are going to be compared. Without net metering, for the months of June 2017 to
December 2017 the average demands of prosumer D were approximately 400, 286,
397, 468, 410, 422, and 562 W. From the table, it can be noticed that before the
integration of grid-tied PV system, the monthly average demands during 2018 were
higher than 2017 demands. The demands were slightly lowered on several months
after integration, with the average demands on June 2018 to December 2018
amounting to315, 250, 466, 415, 418, 368, and 285 W respectively. Yearly average
for 2017 is 386 Watts and 400 Watts for 2018.
Table 4.2.1.5 shows the monthly average demand of prosumer E in Watts during

Table 4.2.1.5
Average Demand of Prosumer E in Watts
Month 2017 2018

January 776 563
February 820 601
March 704 797
April 776 803
May 891 829
June 1008 915
July 797 980
August 852 1371
September 681 964
October 829 671
November 776 658
December 724 902
Average 803 838
For Table 4.2.1.5, we must consider that prosumer E connected their PV system
to the grid on July 2018, thus, months of July to December from the last two years are
going to be compared. Without net metering, for the months of July 2017 to December
2017 the average demands of prosumer E were approximately 797, 852, 681, 829,
776, and 724 W. From the table, the demands after integration of PV system were
980, 1371, 964, 671, 658 and 902 Watts. The demands were only reduced on October
2018 and November 2018. Yearly average for 2017 is 803 Watts and 838 Watts for
2018.
Table 4.2.1.6 shows the monthly average demand of prosumer F in Watts during

Table 4.2.1.6
Average Demand of Prosumer F in Watts
Month 2017 2018

January 720 745
February 500 719
March 555 612
April 1019 878
May 1665 1382
June 1172 861
July 1022 637
August 1433 707
September 1125 758
October 848 591
November 619 569
December 651 440
Average 944 742
For Table 4.2.1.6, we must consider that prosumer F connected their PV system
to the grid on August 2018, thus, months of August to December from the last two
years are going to be compared. Without net metering, for the months of August 2017
to December 2017 the average demands of prosumer F were approximately 1433,
1125, 848, 619, and 651 W. From the table, the demands were reduced during the
months of 2018 with integration of PV system and their values are 707, 758, 591, 569,
and 440 Watts. Yearly average for 2017 is 944 Watts and 742 Watts for 2018.
Table 4.2.1.7 shows the monthly average demand of prosumer G in Watts during

Table 4.2.1.7
Average Demand of Prosumer G in Watts
Month 2017 2018

January 953 1878
February 868 1692
March 1165 1810
April 1781 2725
May 1578 3368
June 1683 2428
July 1329 1825
August 2042 2207
September 3074 1919
October 2379 2112
November 2192 2746
December 1735 1106
Average 1732 2151
For Table 4.2.1.7, we must consider that prosumer G connected their PV system
2017 the average demands of prosumer G were approximately 1578, 1683, 1329,
2042, 3074, 2379, 2192, and 1735 Watts. From the table, demands were only reduced
on the months of September, October, and December with values of 1919, 2112, and
1106 Watts. Yearly average for 2017 is 1732 Watts and 2151 Watts for 2018.
Table 4.2.1.8 shows the monthly average demand of prosumer H in Watts during

Table 4.2.1.8
Average Demand of Prosumer H in Watts
Month 2017 2018

January 1669 1547
February 1512 1607
March 1171 1433
April 1418 1693
May 1684 1495
June 1667 1703
July 1446 1784
August 1813 1985
September 1490 1499
October 1300 1091
November 1299 1253
December 1508 1341
Average 1498 1536
For Table 4.2.1.8, we must consider that prosumer H connected their PV system
to the grid on February 2018, thus, months of February to December from the last two
years are going to be compared. Without net metering, for the months of February
2017 to December 2017 the average demands of prosumer H were approximately
1512, 1171, 1418, 1684, 1667, 1446, 1813, 1490, 1300, 1299 and 1508 Watts. From
the table, demands were only reduced on the months of October to December with
values of 1091, 1253, and 1341 Watts. Yearly average for 2017 is 1498 Watts and
1536 Watts for 2018.
Table 4.2.1.9 shows the monthly average demand of prosumer I in Watts during

Table 4.2.1.9
Average Demand of Prosumer I in Watts
Month 2017 2018

January 372 437
February 455 439
March 423 445
April 632 929
May 573 675
June 608 550
July 496 452
August 565 474
September 546 599
October 480 543
November 1251 478
December 407 487
Average 567 542
For Table 4.2.1.9, we must consider that prosumer I connected their PV system to
the grid on May 2018, thus, months of May to December from the last two years are
2017 the average demands of prosumer I were approximately 573, 608, 496, 565, 546,
480, 1251, and 407Watts. From the table above, demands were only reduced on the
months of June, July, August and November with values of 550, 452, 474, and 478
Watts. Yearly average for 2017 is 567 Watts and 542 Watts for 2018.
Table 4.2.1.10 shows the monthly average demand of prosumer J in Watts during

Table 4.2.1.10
Average Demand of Prosumer J in Watts
Month 2017 2018

January 569 2101
February 860 1823
March 898 1800
April 1744 2017
May 1688 2376
June 1572 2294
July 1973 1661
August 2126 1913
September 2603 2149
October 2360 2245
November 2701 2317
December 2360 2612
Average 1788 2109
For Table 4.2.1.10, we must consider that prosumer J connected their PV system
2017 the average demands of prosumer J were approximately 1688, 1572, 1973,
2126, 2603, 2360, 2701, and 2360 Watts. From the table above, demands were only
reduced on the months of July to November with values of 1661, 1913, 2149, 2245,
2317, and 2612 Watts. Yearly average for 2017 is 1788 Watts and 2109 Watts for
2018.
4.2.2 Peak Demand
Peak demand of prosumers involved in the study before and after installations
are presented below. In obtaining the peak demands of the prosumers, energy
consumption of the prosumers before and during the year of installation are used. Using
the provided data by BATELEC II for the monthly consumption of the prosumer and the
loading characteristics of the corresponding feeder to where the prosumer is connected
(given as Measured Demand on the tables), we can model the hourly real and reactive
demand of the prosumers. The customer energy bill can be converted to hourly power
demand. The Hourly Demand model that will be followed is shown below.
Table 4.2.2
Hourly Demand Model
Hourly
Measured
Per Hourly Real Reactive
Time Demand (A, kW
Unit Demand (Watts) Demand
or KVA)
(VAR)
1:00 3632.72 0.71 572.47 188.16
2:00 3500 0.68 551.56 181.29
3:00 3282.16 0.64 517.23 170.00
4:00 3446.52 0.67 543.13 178.52
5:00 3883.04 0.76 611.92 201.13
6:00 4451.16 0.87 701.45 230.55
7:00 3918.88 0.76 617.57 202.98
8:00 3851.4 0.75 606.93 199.49
9:00 4423.16 0.86 697.03 229.10
10:00 4275.6 0.83 673.78 221.46
11:00 4378.08 0.85 689.93 226.77
12:00 4320.96 0.84 680.93 223.81
13:00 4027.52 0.79 634.69 208.61
14:00 4386.2 0.86 691.21 227.19
15:00 4328.52 0.84 682.12 224.20
16:00 4469.64 0.87 704.36 231.51
17:00 4553.92 0.89 717.64 235.88
18:00 4624.48 0.90 728.76 239.53
19:00 5126.8 1.00 807.92 265.55
20:00 4796.12 0.94 755.81 248.42
21:00 4653.32 0.91 733.30 241.03
22:00 4250.12 0.83 669.76 220.14
23:00 3876.6 0.76 610.90 200.79
24:00 3593.52 0.70 566.29 186.13
Source: NEA, U.P. National Engineering Center, Distribution System Modeling and Analysis
Billing Days: 30,

Energy: 473 kWh
Power factor: 0.95 lagging
Measured Demand: Hourly feeder loading characteristics (Lipa, Rosario, or Taysan)
𝑯𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒍𝒚 𝑴𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒆𝒅 𝑫𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒅
Per-Unit:
𝑴𝒂𝒙𝒊𝒎𝒖𝒎 𝑴𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒆𝒅 𝑫𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒘𝒉𝒐𝒍𝒆 𝒅𝒂𝒚
Σ Per Unit: 19.52

𝑬𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒈𝒚 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒖𝒎𝒑𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒉 (𝒌𝑾𝒉) 𝑷𝒆𝒓−𝑼𝒏𝒊𝒕

Hourly Real Demand = 𝑩𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑫𝒂𝒚𝒔
𝒙 𝜮 𝑷𝒆𝒓 𝑼𝒏𝒊𝒕 ∗ 𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎
Hourly Reactive Demand = 𝑯𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒍𝒚 𝑹𝒆𝒂𝒍 𝑫𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒙 𝒕𝒂𝒏(𝒄𝒐𝒔−𝟏 𝟎. 𝟗𝟓)

From the “Measured Demand” data, it is the feeder consumption profile data to
where consumers are connected. From the calculations, we can determine the
normalized consumption pattern of consumers. Hourly demands of the prosumer will be
based on the day when the peak demand occurred for the span of months with and
without net metering. Operating power factor of BATELEC II used in modelling the hourly
demand is 0.95 lagging.
Table 4.2.2.1 presents the months to be compared and their corresponding
consumption in kWh in order to determine the impact of grid-tied PV system on the
maximum demands of the prosumers.
Table 4.2.2.1
Peak Demand Characteristics of Prosumers A-J
Month of Month of Energy
Prosumer Feeder Integration of Peak Consumption (kWh)
PV to Grid Demand 2017 2018
A Rosario October November 473 272
B Rosario May August 1,160 915
C Rosario May June 1153 203
D Rosario June December 418 212
E Lipa July August 634 1020
F Lipa August September 810 546
G Taysan May September 2213 1382
H Lipa February August 1349 1477
I Rosario May November 901 344
J Taysan May November 1945 1668
The peak demand profile of the prosumers with net metering will be based from
the comparison of loadings from the data given in Table 4.2.2.1. Consumptions of the
prosumers from 2017 and 2018 will be compared in order to determine the impact of the
installed PV systems on peak demand.
Table 4.2.2.1 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer A using their
energy consumption without net metering on November 2017.
Table 4.2.2.1
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer A (November 2017, 473 kWh)
Measured Hourly
Per Hourly Real
Time Demand (A, kW Reactive
Unit Demand (Watts)
or KVA) Demand (VAR)
1:00 3632.72 0.71 572.47 188.16
2:00 3500 0.68 551.56 181.29
3:00 3282.16 0.64 517.23 170.00
4:00 3446.52 0.67 543.13 178.52
5:00 3883.04 0.76 611.92 201.13
6:00 4451.16 0.87 701.45 230.55
7:00 3918.88 0.76 617.57 202.98
8:00 3851.4 0.75 606.93 199.49
9:00 4423.16 0.86 697.03 229.10
10:00 4275.6 0.83 673.78 221.46
11:00 4378.08 0.85 689.93 226.77
12:00 4320.96 0.84 680.93 223.81
13:00 4027.52 0.79 634.69 208.61
14:00 4386.2 0.86 691.21 227.19
15:00 4328.52 0.84 682.12 224.20
16:00 4469.64 0.87 704.36 231.51
17:00 4553.92 0.89 717.64 235.88
18:00 4624.48 0.90 728.76 239.53
19:00 5126.8 1.00 807.92 265.55
20:00 4796.12 0.94 755.81 248.42
21:00 4653.32 0.91 733.30 241.03
22:00 4250.12 0.83 669.76 220.14
23:00 3876.6 0.76 610.90 200.79
24:00 3593.52 0.70 566.29 186.13
For the model of the hourly demand, energy consumption on the month of
November 2017, 473 kilowatt-hours, was used together with the measured demand on
the feeder line of Rosario. Peak demand reached a value of real power of 807.92 W and
265.55 VAR of reactive power.

Table 4.2.2.2 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer A during its peak
month of energy consumption since having installed their net metering system on October
2018.
Table 4.2.2.2
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer A (November 2018, 272 kWh)
Measured Hourly
Per Hourly Real
Unit Demand (Watts)
1:00 3632.72 0.71 329.20 108.20
2:00 3500 0.68 317.17 104.25
3:00 3282.16 0.64 297.43 97.76
4:00 3446.52 0.67 312.33 102.66
5:00 3883.04 0.76 351.88 115.66
6:00 4451.16 0.87 403.37 132.58
7:00 3918.88 0.76 355.13 116.73
8:00 3851.4 0.75 349.02 114.72
9:00 4423.16 0.86 400.83 131.75
10:00 4275.6 0.83 387.46 127.35
11:00 4378.08 0.85 396.75 130.40
12:00 4320.96 0.84 391.57 128.70
13:00 4027.52 0.79 364.98 119.96
14:00 4386.2 0.86 397.48 130.65
15:00 4328.52 0.84 392.25 128.93
16:00 4469.64 0.87 405.04 133.13
17:00 4553.92 0.89 412.68 135.64
18:00 4624.48 0.90 419.07 137.74
19:00 5126.8 1.00 464.60 152.71
20:00 4796.12 0.94 434.63 142.86
21:00 4653.32 0.91 421.69 138.60
22:00 4250.12 0.83 385.15 126.59
23:00 3876.6 0.76 351.30 115.47
24:00 3593.52 0.70 325.65 107.04
With net metering, energy consumption on the month of November 2018 (272
kWh) was used together with the measured demand on the feeder line of Rosario in order
to get the hourly demand profile. Peak demand was rated with a value of 464.60 Watts of
real power and 152.71 VAR of reactive power.

Table 4.2.2.3 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer B using their
energy consumption without net metering on the previous year.
Table 4.2.2.3
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer B (August 2017, 1160 kWh)
Measured Hourly
Per Hourly Real
Time Demand (A, kW or Reactive
Unit Demand (Watts)
KVA) Demand (VAR)
1:00 3618.44 0.74 1369.93 450.27
2:00 3463.88 0.71 1311.41 431.04
3:00 3416.84 0.70 1293.61 425.19
4:00 3404.24 0.70 1288.83 423.62
5:00 3795.96 0.78 1437.14 472.36
6:00 4331.04 0.89 1639.72 538.95
7:00 3726.52 0.77 1410.85 463.72
8:00 3743.6 0.77 1417.32 465.85
9:00 4167.8 0.86 1577.92 518.64
10:00 4174.8 0.86 1580.57 519.51
11:00 4468.52 0.92 1691.77 556.06
12:00 4430.44 0.91 1677.35 551.32
13:00 4030.32 0.83 1525.87 501.53
14:00 4305.56 0.88 1630.07 535.78
15:00 4226.88 0.87 1600.28 525.99
16:00 4323.76 0.89 1636.96 538.04
17:00 4381.44 0.90 1658.80 545.22
18:00 4041.52 0.83 1530.11 502.92
19:00 4576.88 0.94 1732.79 569.54
20:00 4855.76 1.00 1838.38 604.24
21:00 4865.56 1.00 1842.09 605.46
22:00 4521.72 0.93 1711.91 562.68
23:00 4136.72 0.85 1566.15 514.77
24:00 3828.72 0.79 1449.54 476.44
August, 1160 kilowatt-hours was used together with the measured demand on the feeder
line of Rosario. Peak demand value reached 1838.38 Watts of real power and 604.24
VARs of reactive power.

Table 4.2.2.4 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer B during its peak
month of energy consumption since having installed their net metering system on May
2018.
Table 4.2.2.4
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer B (August 2018, 915 kWh)
Hourly
Measured
Time Demand (A, kW
or KVA)
(VAR)
1:00 3618.44 0.74 1080.59 355.17
2:00 3463.88 0.71 1034.43 340.00
3:00 3416.84 0.70 1020.39 335.38
4:00 3404.24 0.70 1016.62 334.15
5:00 3795.96 0.78 1133.61 372.60
6:00 4331.04 0.89 1293.40 425.12
7:00 3726.52 0.77 1112.87 365.78
8:00 3743.6 0.77 1117.97 367.46
9:00 4167.8 0.86 1244.65 409.10
10:00 4174.8 0.86 1246.74 409.78
11:00 4468.52 0.92 1334.45 438.61
12:00 4430.44 0.91 1323.08 434.88
13:00 4030.32 0.83 1203.59 395.60
14:00 4305.56 0.88 1285.79 422.62
15:00 4226.88 0.87 1262.29 414.90
16:00 4323.76 0.89 1291.22 424.40
17:00 4381.44 0.90 1308.45 430.07
18:00 4041.52 0.83 1206.94 396.70
19:00 4576.88 0.94 1366.81 449.25
20:00 4855.76 1.00 1450.10 476.62
21:00 4865.56 1.00 1453.02 477.59
22:00 4521.72 0.93 1350.34 443.84
23:00 4136.72 0.85 1235.37 406.05
24:00 3828.72 0.79 1143.39 375.81
For the model of the hourly demand, energy consumption on the month,
915kWh was used together with the measured demand on the feeder line of Rosario. Peak
demand value is1453.02 Watts of real power and 477.59 VAR of reactive power.
Table 4.2.2.5 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer C using their
Table 4.2.2.5
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer C (June 2017, 1153 kWh)
Measured Hourly
Per Hourly Real
Unit Demand (Watts)
1:00 4283.44 0.80 1526.37 501.69
2:00 4190.48 0.78 1493.25 490.81
3:00 4075.96 0.76 1452.44 477.39
4:00 3892.28 0.72 1386.99 455.88
5:00 3953.32 0.74 1408.74 463.03
6:00 4156.04 0.77 1480.98 486.77
7:00 3937.92 0.73 1403.25 461.23
8:00 4141.76 0.77 1475.89 485.10
9:00 4420.08 0.82 1575.06 517.70
10:00 4374.44 0.81 1558.80 512.35
11:00 4595.08 0.85 1637.42 538.20
12:00 4557.84 0.85 1624.15 533.83
13:00 4376.12 0.81 1559.40 512.55
14:00 4750.76 0.88 1692.90 556.43
15:00 4735.64 0.88 1687.51 554.66
16:00 4807.04 0.89 1712.96 563.02
17:00 4580.8 0.85 1632.34 536.52
18:00 4305 0.80 1534.06 504.22
19:00 4643.24 0.86 1654.59 543.84
20:00 5148.08 0.96 1834.48 602.97
21:00 5378.24 1.00 1916.50 629.92
22:00 5099.08 0.95 1817.02 597.23
23:00 4958.52 0.92 1766.93 580.76
24:00 4493.72 0.84 1601.31 526.32
For the model of the hourly demand, energy consumption on the month of June
is 1153 kilowatt-hours, used together with the measured demand on the feeder line of
Rosario. Peak demand reached a value of 1916.50 Watts of real and 629.92 VARs of
reactive power.
Table 4.2.2.6 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer C during its peak
month of energy consumption since having installed their net metering system on March
2018.
Table 4.2.2.6
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer C (June 2018, 203 kWh)
Measured Demand Per Hourly Real Hourly Reactive

Time
(A, kW or KVA) Unit Demand (Watts) Demand (VAR)
1:00 4107.6 0.84 268.77 88.34
2:00 4034.52 0.82 263.99 86.77
3:00 3926.72 0.80 256.94 84.45
4:00 3870.16 0.79 253.24 83.24
5:00 3867.64 0.79 253.07 83.18
6:00 4011.56 0.82 262.49 86.28
7:00 3981.6 0.81 260.53 85.63
8:00 4376.68 0.89 286.38 94.13
9:00 4609.92 0.94 301.64 99.14
10:00 4556.44 0.93 298.14 97.99
11:00 4541.88 0.93 297.19 97.68
12:00 4516.4 0.92 295.52 97.13
13:00 4060.84 0.83 265.71 87.34
14:00 4504.08 0.92 294.72 96.87
15:00 4495.96 0.92 294.19 96.69
16:00 4403 0.90 288.10 94.69
17:00 4226.88 0.86 276.58 90.91
18:00 3907.12 0.80 255.66 84.03
19:00 4276.44 0.87 279.82 91.97
20:00 4891.04 1.00 320.04 105.19
21:00 4879.56 1.00 319.29 104.94
22:00 4723.6 0.97 309.08 101.59
23:00 4474.4 0.91 292.77 96.23
24:00 4169.2 0.85 272.80 89.67
Based from the historical demand, monthly peak consumption without net
metering occurred on June 2017. For the model of the hourly demand, energy
consumption on the month of June 2018, 203 kilowatt-hours is used, together with the
measured demand on the feeder line of Rosario. Peak demand reached with a value of
320.04 Watts of real power and 105.19 VARs of reactive power.

Table 4.2.2.7 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer D using their
Table 4.2.2.7
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer D (December 2017, 418 kWh)
Measured Hourly
Per Hourly Real
Unit Demand (Watts)
1:00 3499.16 0.68 519.00 170.59
2:00 3447.36 0.67 511.32 168.06
3:00 3323.88 0.64 493.00 162.04
4:00 3324.72 0.64 493.13 162.08
5:00 3939.6 0.76 584.33 192.06
6:00 4309.2 0.83 639.14 210.08
7:00 4229.96 0.82 627.39 206.21
8:00 4025.56 0.78 597.07 196.25
9:00 3244.36 0.63 481.21 158.16
10:00 2795.8 0.54 414.68 136.30
11:00 3048.08 0.59 452.09 148.60
12:00 3048.36 0.59 452.14 148.61
13:00 2986.48 0.58 442.96 145.59
14:00 3099.6 0.60 459.74 151.11
15:00 3095.96 0.60 459.20 150.93
16:00 3146.08 0.61 466.63 153.37
17:00 4380.88 0.85 649.78 213.57
18:00 4653.6 0.90 690.23 226.87
19:00 5181.96 1.00 768.59 252.62
20:00 5036.36 0.97 747.00 245.53
21:00 4939.48 0.95 732.63 240.80
22:00 4490.92 0.87 666.10 218.94
23:00 3998.4 0.77 593.05 194.92
24:00 3664.36 0.71 543.50 178.64
For the model of the hourly demand, energy consumption for the month 418
kilowatt-hours was used together with the measured demand on the feeder line of Rosario.
Peak demand reached a value of 768.59 Watts of real and 252.62 VAR of reactive power.
Table 4.2.2.8 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer Don peak day on
the month of December 2018 with net metering.
Table 4.2.2.8
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer D (December 2018, 212 kWh)
Measured Hourly
Per Hourly Real
Unit Demand (Watts)
KVA) Demand (VAR)
1:00 3499.16 0.68 263.22 86.52
2:00 3447.36 0.67 259.33 85.24
3:00 3323.88 0.64 250.04 82.18
4:00 3324.72 0.64 250.10 82.20
5:00 3939.6 0.76 296.36 97.41
6:00 4309.2 0.83 324.16 106.55
7:00 4229.96 0.82 318.20 104.59
8:00 4025.56 0.78 302.82 99.53
9:00 3244.36 0.63 244.06 80.22
10:00 2795.8 0.54 210.31 69.13
11:00 3048.08 0.59 229.29 75.36
12:00 3048.36 0.59 229.31 75.37
13:00 2986.48 0.58 224.66 73.84
14:00 3099.6 0.60 233.17 76.64
15:00 3095.96 0.60 232.89 76.55
16:00 3146.08 0.61 236.66 77.79
17:00 4380.88 0.85 329.55 108.32
18:00 4653.6 0.90 350.07 115.06
19:00 5181.96 1.00 389.81 128.13
20:00 5036.36 0.97 378.86 124.53
21:00 4939.48 0.95 371.57 122.13
22:00 4490.92 0.87 337.83 111.04
23:00 3998.4 0.77 300.78 98.86
24:00 3664.36 0.71 275.65 90.60
December 2018, 212 kilowatt-hours is used, together with the measured demand on the
feeder line of Rosario. Peak demand reached a value of 389.81 Watts of real power and
128.13VAR of reactive power.

Table 4.2.2.9 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer E using their
energy consumption without net metering on August 2017.
Table 4.2.2.9
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer E (August 2017, 634 kWh)
Measured Hourly
Per Hourly Real
Unit Demand (Watts)
KVA) Demand (VAR)
1:00 28297.92 0.61 661.20 217.33
2:00 27350.4 0.59 639.06 210.05
3:00 26080.32 0.56 609.39 200.30
4:00 25522.56 0.55 596.35 196.01
5:00 26298.72 0.57 614.49 201.97
6:00 28250.88 0.61 660.10 216.96
7:00 27918.24 0.60 652.33 214.41
8:00 30888.48 0.67 721.73 237.22
9:00 37548 0.81 877.34 288.37
10:00 42278.88 0.91 987.88 324.70
11:00 46273.92 1.00 1081.22 355.38
12:00 46401.6 1.00 1084.21 356.36
13:00 44849.28 0.97 1047.94 344.44
14:00 45998.4 0.99 1074.79 353.26
15:00 46250.4 1.00 1080.67 355.20
16:00 44691.36 0.96 1044.25 343.23
17:00 42752.64 0.92 998.95 328.34
18:00 39550.56 0.85 924.13 303.75
19:00 40760.16 0.88 952.39 313.04
20:00 40561.92 0.87 947.76 311.51
21:00 39322.08 0.85 918.79 301.99
22:00 35673.12 0.77 833.53 273.97
23:00 32299.68 0.70 754.70 248.06
24:00 29463.84 0.63 688.44 226.28
kilowatt-hours was used together with the measured demand on the feeder line of Lipa.
Table 4.2.2.10 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer E on peak day
on the month of August 2018 with net metering.
Table 4.2.2.10
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer E (August 2018, 1020 kWh)
Measured Hourly
Per Hourly Real
Unit Demand (Watts)
KVA) Demand (VAR)
1:00 28297.9 0.61 1063.76 349.64
2:00 27350.4 0.59 1028.14 337.93
3:00 26080.3 0.56 980.40 322.24
4:00 25522.6 0.55 959.43 315.35
5:00 26298.7 0.57 988.61 324.94
6:00 28250.9 0.61 1061.99 349.06
7:00 27918.2 0.60 1049.49 344.95
8:00 30888.5 0.67 1161.14 381.65
9:00 37548 0.81 1411.49 463.93
10:00 42278.9 0.91 1589.33 522.39
11:00 46273.9 1.00 1739.51 571.75
12:00 46401.6 1.00 1744.31 573.33
13:00 44849.3 0.97 1685.95 554.15
14:00 45998.4 0.99 1729.15 568.34
15:00 46250.4 1.00 1738.62 571.46
16:00 44691.4 0.96 1680.02 552.19
17:00 42752.6 0.92 1607.14 528.24
18:00 39550.6 0.85 1486.77 488.68
19:00 40760.2 0.88 1532.24 503.62
20:00 40561.9 0.87 1524.78 501.17
21:00 39322.1 0.85 1478.18 485.85
22:00 35673.1 0.77 1341.01 440.77
23:00 32299.7 0.70 1214.19 399.09
24:00 29463.8 0.63 1107.59 364.05
August 2018, 1020 kilowatt-hours was used together with the measured demand on the
feeder line of Lipa. Peak demand reached a value of 1744.31 Watts of real power and

Table 4.2.2.11 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer F using their energy
consumption without net metering on September 2017.
Table 4.2.2.11
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer F (September 2017, 810 kWh)
Measured Hourly
Per Hourly Real
Unit Demand (Watts)
KVA) Demand (VAR)
1:00 28963.2 0.59 857.36 281.80
2:00 27955.2 0.57 827.52 271.99
3:00 27105.12 0.55 802.36 263.72
4:00 26113.92 0.53 773.02 254.08
5:00 27078.24 0.55 801.56 263.46
6:00 29228.64 0.60 865.22 284.38
7:00 28257.6 0.58 836.47 274.94
8:00 31184.16 0.64 923.10 303.41
9:00 38320.8 0.78 1134.36 372.85
10:00 43182.72 0.88 1278.28 420.15
11:00 48051.36 0.98 1422.40 467.52
12:00 47960.64 0.98 1419.72 466.64
13:00 46818.24 0.95 1385.90 455.52
14:00 48726.72 0.99 1442.40 474.09
15:00 49106.4 1.00 1453.63 477.79
16:00 46025.28 0.94 1362.43 447.81
17:00 44993.76 0.92 1331.89 437.77
18:00 42383.04 0.86 1254.61 412.37
19:00 43989.12 0.90 1302.15 428.00
20:00 42252 0.86 1250.73 411.10
21:00 41230.56 0.84 1220.50 401.16
22:00 37248.96 0.76 1102.63 362.42
23:00 34446.72 0.70 1019.68 335.15
24:00 31486.56 0.64 932.06 306.35
Table 4.2.2.12 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer F on peak day
on the month of September 2018 with net metering.
Table 4.2.2.12
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer F (September 2018, 546 kWh)
Measured Hourly
Per Hourly Real
Unit Demand (Watts)
KVA) Demand (VAR)
1:00 28963.2 0.59 577.92 189.95
2:00 27955.2 0.57 557.81 183.34
3:00 27105.12 0.55 540.85 177.77
4:00 26113.92 0.53 521.07 171.27
5:00 27078.24 0.55 540.31 177.59
6:00 29228.64 0.60 583.22 191.70
7:00 28257.6 0.58 563.85 185.33
8:00 31184.16 0.64 622.24 204.52
9:00 38320.8 0.78 764.64 251.33
10:00 43182.72 0.88 861.66 283.21
11:00 48051.36 0.98 958.81 315.14
12:00 47960.64 0.98 956.99 314.55
13:00 46818.24 0.95 934.20 307.06
14:00 48726.72 0.99 972.28 319.57
15:00 49106.4 1.00 979.86 322.06
16:00 46025.28 0.94 918.38 301.86
17:00 44993.76 0.92 897.79 295.09
18:00 42383.04 0.86 845.70 277.97
19:00 43989.12 0.90 877.75 288.50
20:00 42252 0.86 843.09 277.11
21:00 41230.56 0.84 822.70 270.41
22:00 37248.96 0.76 743.26 244.30
23:00 34446.72 0.70 687.34 225.92
24:00 31486.56 0.64 628.28 206.50
September 2018, 546 kilowatt-hours was used together with the measured demand on
the feeder line of Lipa. Peak demand reached a value of 979.86 Watts of real power and

Table 4.2.2.13 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer G using their energy
consumption without net metering on September 2017.
Table 4.2.2.13
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer G (September 2017, 2213 kWh)
Measured Hourly
Per Hourly Real
Unit Demand (Watts)
KVA) Demand (VAR)
1:00 6284.88 0.67 2562.82 842.36
2:00 5942.16 0.64 2423.07 796.42
3:00 5709.76 0.61 2328.30 765.28
4:00 5667.2 0.61 2310.95 759.57
5:00 6156.64 0.66 2510.53 825.17
6:00 6835.36 0.73 2787.29 916.14
7:00 6325.76 0.68 2579.49 847.84
8:00 6426 0.69 2620.37 861.27
9:00 7731.92 0.83 3152.89 1036.30
10:00 8211.84 0.88 3348.59 1100.63
11:00 8631.84 0.93 3519.85 1156.92
12:00 8691.2 0.93 3544.06 1164.88
13:00 7874.72 0.84 3211.12 1055.44
14:00 8749.44 0.94 3567.81 1172.68
15:00 8710.24 0.93 3551.82 1167.43
16:00 8548.4 0.92 3485.83 1145.74
17:00 7966.56 0.85 3248.57 1067.75
18:00 7841.68 0.84 3197.65 1051.02
19:00 9320.64 1.00 3800.73 1249.24
20:00 8958.88 0.96 3653.21 1200.75
21:00 8469.44 0.91 3453.63 1135.15
22:00 7884.24 0.85 3215.00 1056.72
23:00 7249.76 0.78 2956.28 971.68
24:00 6711.6 0.72 2736.83 899.55
kilowatt-hours was used together with the measured demand on the feeder line of Taysan.
Peak demand reached a value of 3800.73 Watts of real and 1249.24 VAR of reactive
power.
Table 4.2.2.14 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer G on peak day
on the month of September 2018 with net metering.
Table 4.2.2.14
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer G (September 2018, 1382 kWh)
Measured Hourly
Per Hourly Real
Unit Demand (Watts)
KVA) Demand (VAR)
1:00 6284.88 0.67 1600.46 526.05
2:00 5942.16 0.64 1513.19 497.36
3:00 5709.76 0.61 1454.00 477.91
4:00 5667.2 0.61 1443.17 474.35
5:00 6156.64 0.66 1567.80 515.31
6:00 6835.36 0.73 1740.64 572.12
7:00 6325.76 0.68 1610.87 529.47
8:00 6426 0.69 1636.40 537.86
9:00 7731.92 0.83 1968.95 647.16
10:00 8211.84 0.88 2091.17 687.33
11:00 8631.84 0.93 2198.12 722.49
12:00 8691.2 0.93 2213.24 727.46
13:00 7874.72 0.84 2005.32 659.12
14:00 8749.44 0.94 2228.07 732.33
15:00 8710.24 0.93 2218.08 729.05
16:00 8548.4 0.92 2176.87 715.50
17:00 7966.56 0.85 2028.70 666.80
18:00 7841.68 0.84 1996.90 656.35
19:00 9320.64 1.00 2373.52 780.14
20:00 8958.88 0.96 2281.40 749.86
21:00 8469.44 0.91 2156.76 708.89
22:00 7884.24 0.85 2007.74 659.91
23:00 7249.76 0.78 1846.17 606.81
24:00 6711.6 0.72 1709.13 561.76
September 2018, 1382 kilowatt-hours was used together with the measured demand on
the feeder line of Taysan. Peak demand reached a value of 2373.52 Watts of real power
and 3749.86 VAR of reactive power.

Table 4.2.2.15 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer H using their energy
consumption without net metering on August 2017.
Table 4.2.2.15
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer H (August 2017, 1349 kWh)
Hourly
Measured
Time Demand (A, kW
or KVA)
(VAR)
1:00 28297.92 0.61 1406.88 462.42
2:00 27350.4 0.59 1359.77 446.93
3:00 26080.32 0.56 1296.63 426.18
4:00 25522.56 0.55 1268.90 417.07
5:00 26298.72 0.57 1307.48 429.75
6:00 28250.88 0.61 1404.54 461.65
7:00 27918.24 0.60 1388.00 456.21
8:00 30888.48 0.67 1535.67 504.75
9:00 37548 0.81 1866.76 613.57
10:00 42278.88 0.91 2101.96 690.88
11:00 46273.92 1.00 2300.58 756.17
12:00 46401.6 1.00 2306.93 758.25
13:00 44849.28 0.97 2229.75 732.88
14:00 45998.4 0.99 2286.88 751.66
15:00 46250.4 1.00 2299.41 755.78
16:00 44691.36 0.96 2221.90 730.30
17:00 42752.64 0.92 2125.52 698.62
18:00 39550.56 0.85 1966.32 646.30
19:00 40760.16 0.88 2026.46 666.06
20:00 40561.92 0.87 2016.60 662.82
21:00 39322.08 0.85 1954.96 642.56
22:00 35673.12 0.77 1773.55 582.94
23:00 32299.68 0.70 1605.83 527.81
24:00 29463.84 0.63 1464.84 481.47
Table 4.2.2.16 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer H on peak day
on the month of August 2018 with net metering.

Table 4.2.2.16
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer H (August 2018, 1477 kWh)
Measured Hourly
Per Hourly Real
Unit Demand (Watts)
1:00 28297.92 0.61 1540.37 506.29
2:00 27350.4 0.59 1488.79 489.34
3:00 26080.32 0.56 1419.66 466.62
4:00 25522.56 0.55 1389.29 456.64
5:00 26298.72 0.57 1431.54 470.53
6:00 28250.88 0.61 1537.81 505.45
7:00 27918.24 0.60 1519.70 499.50
8:00 30888.48 0.67 1681.38 552.64
9:00 37548 0.81 2043.89 671.79
10:00 42278.88 0.91 2301.41 756.44
11:00 46273.92 1.00 2518.87 827.91
12:00 46401.6 1.00 2525.82 830.20
13:00 44849.28 0.97 2441.33 802.42
14:00 45998.4 0.99 2503.88 822.98
15:00 46250.4 1.00 2517.59 827.49
16:00 44691.36 0.96 2432.73 799.60
17:00 42752.64 0.92 2327.20 764.91
18:00 39550.56 0.85 2152.89 707.62
19:00 40760.16 0.88 2218.74 729.26
20:00 40561.92 0.87 2207.95 725.72
21:00 39322.08 0.85 2140.46 703.53
22:00 35673.12 0.77 1941.83 638.25
23:00 32299.68 0.70 1758.20 577.89
24:00 29463.84 0.63 1603.83 527.15
August 2018, 1477 kilowatt-hours was used together with the measured demand on the
feeder line of Lipa. Peak demand reached a value of 2525.82 Watts of real power and
Table 4.2.2.17 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer I using their

Table 4.2.2.17
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer I (November 2017, 901 kWh)
Measured Hourly
Demand (A, kW or Per Hourly Real Reactive
Time KVA) Unit Demand (Watts) Demand (VAR)
1:00 3632.72 0.71 1090.48 358.42
2:00 3500 0.68 1050.64 345.33
3:00 3282.16 0.64 985.25 323.83
4:00 3446.52 0.67 1034.58 340.05
5:00 3883.04 0.76 1165.62 383.12
6:00 4451.16 0.87 1336.16 439.17
7:00 3918.88 0.76 1176.38 386.66
8:00 3851.4 0.75 1156.12 380.00
9:00 4423.16 0.86 1327.75 436.41
10:00 4275.6 0.83 1283.46 421.85
11:00 4378.08 0.85 1314.22 431.96
12:00 4320.96 0.84 1297.07 426.33
13:00 4027.52 0.79 1208.99 397.38
14:00 4386.2 0.86 1316.66 432.76
15:00 4328.52 0.84 1299.34 427.07
16:00 4469.64 0.87 1341.71 441.00
17:00 4553.92 0.89 1367.00 449.31
18:00 4624.48 0.90 1388.19 456.27
19:00 5126.8 1.00 1538.97 505.84
20:00 4796.12 0.94 1439.71 473.21
21:00 4653.32 0.91 1396.84 459.12
22:00 4250.12 0.83 1275.81 419.34
23:00 3876.6 0.76 1163.69 382.48
24:00 3593.52 0.70 1078.71 354.55
kilowatt-hours was used together with the measured demand on the feeder line of Rosario.
Table 4.2.2.18 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer I on peak day
on the month of November 2018 with net metering.

Table 4.2.2.18
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer I (November 2018, 344 kWh)
Measured Hourly
1:00 3632.72 0.71 416.34 136.84
2:00 3500 0.68 401.13 131.85
3:00 3282.16 0.64 376.16 123.64
4:00 3446.52 0.67 395.00 129.83
5:00 3883.04 0.76 445.03 146.27
6:00 4451.16 0.87 510.14 167.68
7:00 3918.88 0.76 449.14 147.62
8:00 3851.4 0.75 441.40 145.08
9:00 4423.16 0.86 506.93 166.62
10:00 4275.6 0.83 490.02 161.06
11:00 4378.08 0.85 501.77 164.92
12:00 4320.96 0.84 495.22 162.77
13:00 4027.52 0.79 461.59 151.72
14:00 4386.2 0.86 502.70 165.23
15:00 4328.52 0.84 496.09 163.06
16:00 4469.64 0.87 512.26 168.37
17:00 4553.92 0.89 521.92 171.55
18:00 4624.48 0.90 530.01 174.20
19:00 5126.8 1.00 587.58 193.13
20:00 4796.12 0.94 549.68 180.67
21:00 4653.32 0.91 533.31 175.29
22:00 4250.12 0.83 487.10 160.10
23:00 3876.6 0.76 444.29 146.03
24:00 3593.52 0.70 411.85 135.37
November 2018, 344 kilowatt-hours was used together with the measured demand on the
feeder line of Rosario. Peak demand reached a value of 587.58 Watts of real power and

Table 4.2.2.19 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer J using their
Table 4.2.2.17
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer J (November 2017, 1945 kWh)
Measured Hourly
1:00 5873.28 0.61 2070.12 680.42
2:00 5644.8 0.58 1989.59 653.95
3:00 5522.72 0.57 1946.56 639.80
4:00 5436.48 0.56 1916.16 629.81
5:00 6152.72 0.64 2168.61 712.79
6:00 6982.08 0.72 2460.93 808.87
7:00 6392.96 0.66 2253.29 740.62
8:00 6468 0.67 2279.74 749.31
9:00 7729.68 0.80 2724.43 895.48
10:00 8120.56 0.84 2862.20 940.76
11:00 8640.8 0.89 3045.57 1001.03
12:00 8798.72 0.91 3101.23 1019.33
13:00 8285.2 0.86 2920.23 959.83
14:00 8856.4 0.92 3121.56 1026.01
15:00 9414.16 0.97 3318.15 1090.62
16:00 9066.4 0.94 3195.58 1050.34
17:00 8913.52 0.92 3141.69 1032.62
18:00 9082.08 0.94 3201.11 1052.15
19:00 9670.64 1.00 3408.55 1120.34
20:00 9012.64 0.93 3176.63 1044.11
21:00 8464.4 0.88 2983.40 980.59
22:00 7814.24 0.81 2754.24 905.27
23:00 7120.96 0.74 2509.88 824.96
24:00 6479.76 0.67 2283.88 750.68
kilowatt-hours was used together with the measured demand on the feeder line of Taysan.
Peak demand reached a value of 3408.55 Watts of real and 1120.34 VAR of reactive
power.
Table 4.2.2.20 presents the hourly demand model of prosumer J on peak day
on the month of November 2018 with net metering.
Table 4.2.2.20
Hourly Demand Model of Prosumer J (November 2018, 1668 kWh)
Measured Hourly
1:00 5873.28 0.61 1775.30 583.51
2:00 5644.8 0.58 1706.24 560.81
3:00 5522.72 0.57 1669.34 548.68
4:00 5436.48 0.56 1643.27 540.12
5:00 6152.72 0.64 1859.77 611.28
6:00 6982.08 0.72 2110.45 693.67
7:00 6392.96 0.66 1932.38 635.14
8:00 6468 0.67 1955.06 642.60
9:00 7729.68 0.80 2336.43 767.95
10:00 8120.56 0.84 2454.58 806.78
11:00 8640.8 0.89 2611.83 858.47
12:00 8798.72 0.91 2659.56 874.16
13:00 8285.2 0.86 2504.34 823.14
14:00 8856.4 0.92 2677.00 879.89
15:00 9414.16 0.97 2845.59 935.30
16:00 9066.4 0.94 2740.48 900.75
17:00 8913.52 0.92 2694.26 885.56
18:00 9082.08 0.94 2745.22 902.31
19:00 9670.64 1.00 2923.12 960.78
20:00 9012.64 0.93 2724.23 895.41
21:00 8464.4 0.88 2558.51 840.94
22:00 7814.24 0.81 2361.99 776.35
23:00 7120.96 0.74 2152.43 707.47
24:00 6479.76 0.67 1958.62 643.77
November 2018, 1668 kilowatt-hours was used together with the measured demand on
the feeder line of Taysan. Peak demand reached a value of 2923.12 Watts of real power
and 960.78 VAR of reactive power.

4.2.3 Load Factor
Related data of the prosumers’ systems in getting the load factor are presented
below in order to analyze the impact of the PV system. This part of the chapter presents
the load factor of the systems based upon the results of average demand and peak
demand. The load factor will only include the months that are used in the calculations for
peak demand. The load factor is an indication on how the electricity that runs through the
feeders are utilized by the consumers connected to them. Load factor for the prosumers
during the peak demand month is calculated using the formula given below.
𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑘𝑊ℎ)

𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 =
(𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 (𝑘𝑊) ∗ 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 ∗ 24)
Table 4.2.3.1 presents the load factor of the feeders of BATELEC II where
prosumers with net metering system are connected.
Table 4.2.3.1
Load Factor Characteristics of Prosumers
Monthly
No. of Billing Load
Prosumer Consumption Peak Demand (W)
Days Factor
(kWh)
A 272 30 465 81.31%
B 915 31 1453 84.64%
C 203 30 337 83.56%
D 212 31 390 73.10%
E 1020 31 1744 78.61%
F 546 30 980 77.39%
G 1382 30 2374 80.87%
H 1477 31 2525 78.62%
I 344 30 588 81.31%
J 1668 30 3408 79.25%
The table above shows the operating load factors of the residences of prosumers.
Load factor is correlated with how efficient the prosumers are in utilizing their electricity.
Prosumer D possessed the lowest load factor among the group with a value of 73.10%,
while prosumer B got the highest with 84.64%. A low load factor results to a higher billing
from the distribution utility. With the use of grid-tied solar power system and proper load
management, the load factor of the prosumers involved in the study can be further
improved by lowering the maximum demands that occur during the day. The peak
demands that occur during the night can be lowered by proper load management, which
means that appliances that require lots of power use such as washing machines and
pumps should be used during the day.
4.2.4 Occurrence of Peak Demand
The occurrence of peak demand for the prosumers involved in the study are shown
in order to assess when peak demands occur in the systems. For residential properties,
peak demand occurs usually at noon and moonrise. With the help of grid-tied photovoltaic
systems, peak demand occurrence during mid-day should be ideally cut down. This part
of the chapter presents the behavior of the occurrence of peak demand in the feeders
where prosumers’ electrical systems are connected. With the generated normalized hourly
demand showing the peak demand in tables 4.2.2.1 to 4.2.2.20, the maximum demands
that occurred during their corresponding months are summarized in the data below.
Table 4.2.4 shows the time when peak demand occurs at the feeders where
prosumers are connected and the corresponding load rating that occurs at the same given
time period.
Table 4.2.4.1
Occurrence of Peak Demand with Net Metering
Demand
Time of Rating (W)
Prosumer Location Month
Day
2017 2018
A Rosario November 19:00 808 465
B Rosario August 21:00 1839 1453
C Rosario June 21:00 1917 337
D Rosario December 19:00 769 390
E Lipa August 12:00 1085 1744
F Lipa September 15:00 1454 980
G Taysan September 19:00 3801 2374
H Lipa August 12:00 2307 2525
I Rosario November 19:00 1539 588
J Taysan November 19:00 3409 3409
Based from the table 4.2.4.1., peak demand occurs most frequently during
night time (19:00 and 21:00) but in some occasions they also occur during daytime (12:00
and 15:00). According to the given data by BATELEC II, Rosario, Taysan, and Lipa are
categorized into separate feeders. The loading characteristics of said feeders were used
in determining the hour when the peak demand occurs. The months stated in the table are
the ones used in determining the peak demands in the year of 2018. Peak demand
occurrence varies on the location, month, and the time of day. The location defines the
feeder in which prosumers are connected to. The months of the year also becomes a
factor in demand increase, as consumption rises in the months with high temperatures
due to more frequent operation of air conditioning units. The time of day also contributes
in the rise of peak demand due to the different loads that are operating on different times
of the day. Only the peak demands that occur during daytime can be offset by the help of
PV systems supplying the grid.

4.3 Presentation of the load flow analysis of the secondary circuit with and without
net metering utilization scheme using ETAP simulator.
This part of the chapter will present and discuss the secondary circuit where
the prosumers involved in the study are connected. Daily average demand per hour has
been used as input for the simulation, based on table 4.2.1. The circuit diagram for every
prosumer has been layout and simulated using the ETAP simulator. Using load flow
analysis, real power, reactive power, apparent power, current and power factor of the
transformer on the secondary side will be the parameters to be presented and discussed.
Data presented will be divided into two categories namely: without PV installation and with
PV installation.
Table 4.3.1 presents the secondary circuit’s transformer condition where
customer A and other twenty (19) consumers are connected from the year 2015 up to
2018.
Table 4.3.1
50 kVA Transformer’s Condition of Customer A
(January 2015- December 2018)
Power
Real Power Reactive Power Apparent Current
Year Factor
(kW) (kVAR) Power (kVA) (A)
(%)
Without Net
Metering
2015 4.40 1.59 4.63 11.7 95
2016 5.24 1.90 5.52 14 95
2017 5.04 1.81 5.30 13.4 95
2018 (Jan-Sept) 4.97 1.79 5.23 13.2 95
With Net
Metering
2018 (Oct-Dec) 3.58 1.77 3.99 10 89.6
Based on the simulated data using load flow analysis on ETAP simulator, it can
be observed that the power factor on the secondary circuit, with twenty (20) customers
connected including the prosumer, does not vary when no net-metering service is installed
from January 2015 to September 2018. However, this changes when net-metering service
in customer A operated from October 2018 to December 2018, from 95% power factor to
89.6%. This is due to the relationship of the real power, reactive power and apparent
power. Real power indicates the usable power or power factor multiplied to the apparent
power. Distribution transformer delivers apparent power to the secondary side and the
consumers utilizes the 95% of the power delivered, this occurrence is prior to the
installation of net-metering service to prosumer A. On the event that net-metering has
been operated, the power factor decreases to 89.6%, that is to say that the prosumer has
another source of energy that he/she uses first before importing from the grid. In other
words, consumers using the power delivered by the transformer has been reduced by one
since he/she has solar power system that harnesses energy from sunlight and prioritized
to be consumed first.
customer B and other fifty (50) consumers are connected from the year 2015 up to 2018.
Table 4.3.2
50 kVA Transformer’s Condition of Customer B
Power
Year Factor
(%)
Without Net
Metering
2015 7.73 2.78 8.22 20.6 94.1
2016 8.25 2.96 8.76 22 94.1
2017 8.26 2.96 8.77 22 94.1
2018 (Jan-April) 8.02 2.88 8.53 21.4 94.1
With Net
Metering
2018 (May-Dec) 3.71 3.05 4.08 12.10 77.3
be observed that the power factor on the secondary circuit, with fifty-one (51) customers
connected including the prosumer, does not vary too much when no net-metering service
is installed from January 2015 to April 2018. However, this changes when net-metering
service in customer B operated from May 2018 to December 2018, from 94% power factor
to 77.3%. The drastic drop of power factor has been observed, for the prosumer B has a
set of high capacity solar power system based on table 4.1.1.1. With that being said,
prosumer B harnesses more than or just the right amount of energy that he/she consumes
averaging per hour.
customer C and other forty-one (41) consumers are connected from the year 2015 up to
2018.
Table 4.3.3
15 kVA Transformer’s Condition of Customer C
Power
Year Factor
(%)
Without Net
Metering
2015 8.72 3.11 9.26 21.7 94.2
2016 9.65 3.45 10.24 24 94.2
2017 11.66 4.16 12.39 29 94.1
2018 (Jan-Feb) 11.32 4.04 12.01 28.2 94.2
With Net
Metering
2018 (Mar-Dec) 7.61 4.43 8.80 20.7 86.4
be observed that the power factor on the secondary circuit, with forty-two (42) customers
is installed from January 2015 to February 2018. However, this changes when net-
metering service in customer C operated from March 2018 to December 2018, from 94%
power factor to 86.4%. In prosumer C’s network side, the number of customers increases
as stated in table 4.5.3. Nevertheless, the power factor still decreases for prosumer C has
a set of high capacity solar power system as stated in table 4.1.1.1.
customer D and other sixty-nine (69) consumers are connected from the year 2015 up to
2018.
Table 4.3.4
25 kVA Transformer’s Condition of Customer D
Power
Year Factor
(%)
Without Net
Metering
2015 7.66 2.76 8.14 18.8 94.1
2016 8.77 3.16 9.32 22.8 94.1
2017 10.05 3.63 10.68 26.2 94.1
2018 (Jan-May) 10.46 3.77 11.11 27.2 94.1
With Net
Metering
2018 (Jun-Dec) 8.81 3.89 9.63 23.6 91.5
be observed that the power factor on the secondary circuit, with seventy (70) customers
is installed from January 2015 to May 2018. However, the power factor decreases when
net-metering service in customer D operated from June 2018 to December 2018, from
94.1% power factor to 91.5%. Unlike the prosumers above, prosumer D does not have a
set of high capacity solar power system, however it still affects the power factor of the
secondary side.
customer E and other two (2) consumers are connected from the year 2015 up to 2018.
Table 4.3.5
25 kVA Transformer’s Condition of Customer E
Power
Year Factor
(%)
Without Net
Metering
2015 1.59 0.54 1.68 4.2 94.6
2016 2.26 0.79 2.39 6.0 94.4
2017 3.81 0.67 4.04 5.1 94.4
2018 (Jan-June) 1.81 0.63 1.91 4.8 94.4
With Net
Metering
2018 (July-Dec) 0.04 0.50 0.49 1.2 8.90
be observed that the power factor on the secondary circuit, with three (3) customers
from January 2015 to June 2018. However, this changes when net-metering service in
customer E operated from July 2018 to December 2018, from 94.4% power factor to 8.9%.
This greatly affect the system, since the network only has three (3) customers. Prosumer
E does not have a set of high capacity solar power system, however the other customers
connected with same network does not consume much energy as the prosumer,
additionally, prosumer E consumes the right amount of energy harnessed by the installed
solar home system.
customer F and other thirty (30) consumers are connected from the year 2015 up to 2018.
Table 4.3.6
50 kVA Transformer’s Condition of Customer F
Power
Year Factor
(%)
Without Net
Metering
2015 7.77 2.79 8.26 20.7 94.1
2016 8.26 2.96 8.77 22 94.2
2017 8.31 2.97 8.82 22.1 94.2
2018 (Jan-July) 8.03 2.87 8.53 21.4 94.1
With Net
Metering
2018 (Aug-Dec) 4.81 2.75 5.54 13.9 86.8
be observed that the power factor on the secondary circuit, with thirty-one (31) customers
is installed from January 2015 to July 2018. However, this changes when net-metering
service in customer F operated from August 2018 to December 2018, from 94.1% power
factor to 86.8%. From table 4.1.1.1, prosumer F does not have a set of high capacity solar
system, however, it is evident that it affects the secondary network since the customers
connected on the same network does not consume much energy as prosumer F when no
net metering service is installed.

customer G and other forty-seven (47) consumers are connected from the year 2015 up
to 2018.
Table 4.3.7
37.5 kVA Transformer’s Condition of Customer G
Power
Year Factor
(%)
Without Net
Metering
2015 9.39 3.36 9.97 25 94.2
2016 10.27 3.67 10.9 27.4 94.2
2017 11.43 4.09 12.15 30.5 94.1
2018 (Jan-April) 12.76 4.56 13.54 34 94.2
With Net
Metering
2018 (May-Dec) 13.66 5.54 14.74 37 92.7
be observed that the power factor on the secondary circuit, with forty-eight (48) customers
is installed from January 2015 to April 2018. However, in case of customer G, the power
factor did not drop too much. For prosumer G did not have the right set of solar power
system. Additionally, he/she consumes much more energy than the harnessed by the
solar power system, in other words, the system cannot support the energy demand by the
prosumer G. But still the power factor dropped.

customer H and other forty-one (41) consumers are connected from the year 2015 up to
2018.
Table 4.3.8
75 kVA Transformer’s Condition of Customer H
Power
Year Factor
(%)
Without Net
Metering
2015 22.51 8.12 23.92 60.1 94.1
2016 26.1 9.42 27.74 69.7 94.1
2017 25.47 9.19 27.07 68 94.1
2018 (Jan) 30.94 11.17 32.88 82.6 94.1
With Net
Metering
2018 (Feb-Dec) 24.06 9.9 26.01 65.3 92.5
be observed that the power factor on the secondary circuit, with forty-two (42) customers
is installed from January 2015 to January 2018. However, this changes when net-metering
service in customer H operated from February 2018 to December 2018, from 94.1% power
factor to 92.5%. Like prosumer G, prosumer H’s power factor did not drop too much. In
contrast, prosumer H’s network customer increases from 32 to 42 customers connected
in same network. In other words, the demand energy on the secondary side is large that
the net-meter did not have much effect.
customer I and other fourteen (14) consumers are connected from the year 2015 up to
2018.
Table 4.3.9
37.5 kVA Transformer’s Condition of Customer I
Power
Year Factor
(%)
Without Net
Metering
2015 4.14 1.48 4.39 11 94.2
2016 5.46 1.95 5.8 14.6 94.2
2017 4.85 1.74 5.15 12.9 94.2
2018 (Jan-April) 4.92 1.76 5.23 13.1 94.1
With Net
Metering
2018 (May-Dec) -1.38 1.69 2.18 5.5 -63.3
be observed that the power factor on the secondary circuit, with fifteen (15) customers
from January 2015 to April 2018. However, a drastic decrease in power factor occur when
net metering operated during May 2018 to December 2018. This is due to the solar power
system installed to prosumer I, with at capacity of 6.5 kW peak based on table 4.1.1.1.
The negative sign indicates that the harnessed energy by the prosumer has been given
back to the grid, in other words, prosumer H’s system harness more than enough energy
than needed.
customer J is the only consumer connected to the network from the year 2017 up to 2018.
Table 4.3.10
50 kVA Transformer’s Condition of Customer J
Power
Year Factor
(%)
Without Net
Metering
2017 1.79 0.59 1.88 4.7 95
2018 (Jan-April) 1.91 0.63 2.01 5 95
With Net
Metering
2018 (May-Dec) -0.31 0.73 0.79 2 -39.5
be observed that the power factor on the secondary circuit does not change when no net-
metering service is installed from January 2017 to April 2018. However, this changes when
net-metering service in customer J operated from May 2018 to December 2018, from 95%
to -39.5%. The negative sign indicates that the harnessed energy by the prosumer has
been given back to the grid, in other words, prosumer J’s system harness more than
enough energy than needed. In addition, prosumer I is newly built house and the only
consumer connected on the transformer
4.4. Economical Study on the Installed Photovoltaic Systems of Prosumers
This segment of the chapter presents the economic studies done on the systems
of the prosumers involved in the study. Optimal PV sizing of the prosumers are presented,
and the return on investment on the currently installed PV systems are determined in this
part of the chapter.

4.4.1 Presentation of the Optimal PV Sizing of Net Metering Customers
This part of the chapter will present and discuss the optimal PV sizing for net
metering customers of BATELEC II. Data presented are the Current PV System Rating
and the Optimal PV Sizing. The monthly savings and system size used in the succeeding
tables follow the formula below:
4.5
𝑴𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒉𝒍𝒚 𝒔𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒔 = ( ) (𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝐵𝑖𝑙𝑙)
8
𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠
𝑺𝒚𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒎 𝒔𝒊𝒛𝒆 = 𝑃𝑒𝑠𝑜
𝑃𝑆𝐻 𝑥 𝑘𝑊ℎ
𝑥 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ
Table 4.4.1 presents the optimal PV sizing of each consumer who is connected to
a solar net metering system. We have used the formula in Appendix R to compute for the
optimal PV sizing.
Table 4.4.1
Optimal PV Sizing of Net Metering Customers
Highest Current PV
Optimal PV
Prosumer Average Load System Rating
Sizing (kW)
(kWh/Month) (kW)
A 785 1.5 3.27
B 646 5 2.7
C 1603 5 6.68
D 609 2.2 2.54
E 1020 2 4.25
F 1239 3 5.16
G 2506 2 10.44
H 1477 3.57 6.15
I 901 6.5 3.75
J 1943 3 8.10
For Prosumer A, they have a current PV rating of 1.5kW installed, but after
computing for the optimal PV size, it should be upgraded to a 3.27kW system. For
Prosumer B, they have a current PV rating of 5 kW installed, but after computing for the
optimal PV size, it should be downgraded to a 2.7kW system. For Prosumer C, they have
a current PV rating of 5kW installed, but after computing for the optimal PV size, it should
be upgraded to a 6.68kW system. For Prosumer D, they have a current PV rating of 2.2
kW installed, but after computing for the optimal PV size, it should be upgraded to a 2.54
kW system. For Prosumer E, they have a current PV rating of 2 kW installed, but after
Prosumer F, they have a current PV rating of 3kW installed, but after computing for the
optimal PV size, it should be upgraded to a 5.16kW system.
For Prosumer G, they have a current PV rating of 2kW installed, but after
Prosumer H, they have a current PV rating of 3.57kW installed, but after computing for the
optimal PV size, it should be upgraded to a 6.15kW system. For Prosumer I, they have a
current PV rating of 6.5kW installed, but after computing for the optimal PV size, it should
be upgraded to a 3.75kW system. For Prosumer J, they have a current PV rating of 3kW
installed, but after computing for the optimal PV size, it should be upgraded to a 8.10kW
system.
The Highest Average Load was used in the computation for the optimal PV sizing
to represent the highest rating that the prosumers consumes in a month. Due to
confidentiality issues, we did not attach the data gathered from BATELEC to represent the
prosumers' data for average load. Based from site inspections and formal interviews from
the prosumers, the researchers have gathered the current or existing ratings of their solar
PV installations that was used in the comparison of the optimal PV sizing. For the
computation of the optimal PV sizing, the highest monthly load, the BATELEC rate wherein
the highest monthly load occurred, and the peak sun hours was used. Refer to Appendix
R for the formula for the monthly savings and the optimal PV sizing for each prosumer.
4.4.2 Presentation of the Return of Investment
This part of the chapter will present and discuss the return of investment for net
metering customers of BATELEC II. Data presented are the Total Solar Energy Produced,
Total Savings and Investment and Cumulative Savings. Please refer to Appendices E-N
for the complete computation for the return of investment. The researchers considered the
PV array systems' yield per year, PV degradation factor per year for the computation of
the avoided costs each year. The prosumers’ initial investment is gathered through the
site inspection and formal interview. According to an online journal titled “Quantifying self-
consumption linked to solar home battery systems: Statistical analysis and economic
assessment”, without energy storage, you can make good use of about 48 to 99 percent
of the solar electricity for your own house. The researchers used 70% for the prosumers
percentage of own consumption and the remaining 30% is sent back to the grid. With
respect to the solar panel’s degradation, PV yields decreases 0.5% every year thus
reduces its output power. The return of investments of the prosumers follow the formulas
below:
𝑷𝑽 𝒀𝒊𝒆𝒍𝒅 = 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑥 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑥 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑺𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒔 𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝒚𝒆𝒂𝒓 = (𝑃𝑉 𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑥 0.7 𝑥 𝐷𝑈 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒) + (𝑃𝑉 𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑥 0.3 𝑥 𝐺𝑒𝑛. 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒) − 𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒
𝑰𝒏𝒗𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑪𝒖𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝑺𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒔 = 𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐼𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 − 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟

Table 4.4.2 presents the return of investment of Prosumer A. The inital
investment made was about Php 200,000.00. In 14 years, Prosumer A will get back their
investment from installing a net metering system.
Table 4.4.2
Return of Investment of Prosumer A
Total Solar Energy Investment and Cumulative

Year Total Savings
Produced Savings
Year kWh Php Php

1 2,102.00 15,147.69 184,852.31
2 2,081.38 14,996.85 169,855.46
3 2,070.86 15,018.68 154,836.78
4 2,060.35 14,960.29 139,876.49
5 2,049.84 14,838.72 125,037.77
6 2,039.33 14,567.64 110,470.13
7 2,028.82 14,651.15 95,818.98
8 2,018.30 14,568.72 81,250.27
9 2,007.79 14,479.77 66,770.50
10 1,997.28 14,396.24 52,374.27
11 1,986.77 14,317.62 38,056.65
12 1,976.26 14,249.76 23,806.89
13 1,965.74 14,156.06 9,650.83
14 1,955.23 14,074.40 (4,423.56)
15 1,944.72 13,993.23 (18,416.79)
16 1,934.21 13,911.65 (32,328.45)
17 1,923.70 13,829.70 (46,158.14)
18 1,913.18 13,746.92 (59,905.06)
19 1,902.67 13,666.12 (73,571.17)
20 1,892.16 13,584.39 (87,155.57)
21 1,881.65 13,502.63 (100,658.20)
22 1,871.14 13,420.90 (114,079.10)
23 1,860.62 13,339.20 (127,418.30)
24 1,850.11 13,257.56 (140,675.86)
25 1,839.60 13,175.77 (153,851.64)
Table 4.4.3 presents the return of investment of Prosumer B. The inital investment
made was about Php 350,000.00. In 8 years, Prosumer B will get back their investment
from installing a net metering system.
Table 4.4.3
Return of Investment of Prosumer B

Year Total Savings
Produced Savings
Year kWh Php Php

1 7,008.00 48,852.62 301,147.38
2 6,972.96 48,610.93 252,536.45
3 6,937.92 48,685.42 203,851.03
4 6,902.88 48,491.19 155,359.84
5 6,867.84 48,085.29 107,274.55
6 6,832.80 47,178.42 60,096.13
7 6,797.76 47,459.63 12,636.50
8 6,762.72 47,184.84 (34,548.35)
9 6,727.68 46,888.22 (81,436.57)
10 6,692.64 46,609.75 (128,046.32)
11 6,657.60 46,347.75 (174,394.07)
12 6,622.56 46,121.79 (220,515.86)
13 6,587.52 45,809.26 (266,325.11)
14 6,552.48 45,537.04 (311,862.15)
15 6,517.44 45,266.51 (357,128.66)
16 6,482.40 44,994.57 (402,123.23)
17 6,447.36 44,721.39 (446,844.62)
18 6,412.32 44,445.44 (491,290.05)
19 6,377.28 44,176.11 (535,466.17)
20 6,342.24 43,903.70 (579,369.87)
21 6,307.20 43,631.17 (623,001.04)
22 6,272.16 43,358.74 (666,359.77)
23 6,237.12 43,086.40 (709,446.17)
24 6,202.08 42,814.28 (752,260.45)
25 6,167.04 42,541.65 (794,802.10)
Table 4.4.4 presents the return of investment of Prosumer C. The inital investment
made was about Php 300,000.00. In 7 years, Prosumer C will get back their investment
Table 4.4.4
Return of Investment of Prosumer C

Year Total Savings
Produced Savings
Year kWh Php Php

1 7,008.00 48,852.62 251,147.38
2 6,972.96 48,610.93 202,536.45
3 6,937.92 48,685.42 153,851.03
4 6,902.88 48,491.19 105,359.84
5 6,867.84 48,085.29 57,274.55
6 6,832.80 47,178.42 10,096.13
7 6,797.76 47,459.63 (37,363.50)
8 6,762.72 47,184.84 (84,548.35)
9 6,727.68 46,888.22 (131,436.57)
10 6,692.64 46,609.75 (178,046.32)
11 6,657.60 46,347.75 (224,394.07)
12 6,622.56 46,121.79 (270,515.86)
13 6,587.52 45,809.26 (316,325.11)
14 6,552.48 45,537.04 (361,862.15)
15 6,517.44 45,266.51 (407,128.66)
16 6,482.40 44,994.57 (452,123.23)
17 6,447.36 44,721.39 (496,844.62)
18 6,412.32 44,445.44 (541,290.05)
19 6,377.28 44,176.11 (585,466.17)
20 6,342.24 43,903.70 (629,369.87)
21 6,307.20 43,631.17 (673,001.04)
22 6,272.16 43,358.74 (716,359.77)
23 6,237.12 43,086.40 (759,446.17)
24 6,202.08 42,814.28 (802,260.45)
25 6,167.04 42,541.65 (844,802.10)
Table4.4.5 presents the return of investment of Prosumer D. The inital investment
made was about Php 200,000.00. In 14 years, Prosumer D will get back their investment
Table 4.4.5
Return of Investment of Prosumer D

Year Total Savings
Produced Savings
Year kWh Php Php

1 3,084.00 18,474.87 181,525.13
2 3,068.10 18,364.81 163,160.32
3 3,052.68 18,397.58 144,762.74
4 3,037.27 18,312.13 126,450.61
5 3,021.85 18,133.53 108,317.09
6 3,006.43 17,734.51 90,582.58
7 2,991.01 17,858.24 72,724.34
8 2,975.60 17,737.33 54,987.01
9 2,960.18 17,606.82 37,380.20
10 2,944.76 17,484.29 19,895.90
11 2,929.34 17,369.01 2,526.89
12 2,913.93 17,269.59 (14,742.69)
13 2,898.51 17,132.07 (31,874.77)
14 2,883.09 17,012.30 (48,887.06)
15 2,867.67 16,893.26 (65,780.33)
16 2,852.26 16,773.61 (82,553.94)
17 2,836.84 16,653.41 (99,207.35)
18 2,821.42 16,531.99 (115,739.34)
19 2,806.00 16,413.49 (132,152.83)
20 2,790.59 16,293.63 (148,446.46)
21 2,775.17 16,173.71 (164,620.17)
22 2,759.75 16,053.84 (180,674.02)
23 2,744.33 15,934.02 (196,608.03)
24 2,728.92 15,814.28 (212,422.31)
25 2,713.50 15,694.32 (228,116.64)
Table4.4.6 presents the return of investment of Prosumer E. The inital investment
made was about Php 1,000,000.00. They will not get their investment back from installing
a net metering system.
Table 4.4.6
Return of Investment of Prosumer E

Year Total Savings
Produced Savings
Year kWh Php Php

1 2,803.20 16,301.05 983,698.95
2 2,789.18 16,204.37 967,494.58
3 2,775.17 16,234.17 951,260.41
4 2,761.15 16,156.48 935,103.94
5 2,747.14 15,994.11 919,109.82
6 2,733.12 15,631.37 903,478.45
7 2,719.10 15,743.85 887,734.60
8 2,705.09 15,633.94 872,100.66
9 2,691.07 15,515.29 856,585.37
10 2,677.06 15,403.90 841,181.47
11 2,663.04 15,299.10 825,882.37
12 2,649.02 15,208.71 810,673.66
13 2,635.01 15,083.70 795,589.96
14 2,620.99 14,974.82 780,615.14
15 2,606.98 14,866.60 765,748.54
16 2,592.96 14,757.83 750,990.71
17 2,578.94 14,648.55 736,342.15
18 2,564.93 14,538.17 721,803.98
19 2,550.91 14,430.45 707,373.53
20 2,536.90 14,321.48 693,052.05
21 2,522.88 14,212.47 678,839.58
22 2,508.86 14,103.49 664,736.09
23 2,494.85 13,994.56 650,741.53
24 2,480.83 13,885.71 636,855.82
25 2,466.82 13,776.66 623,079.16
Table4.4.7 presents the return of investment of Prosumer F. The inital investment
made was about Php 300,000.00. In 12 years, Prosumer F will get back their investment
Table 4.4.7
Return of Investment of Prosumer F

Year Total Savings
Produced Savings
Year kWh Php Php

1 4,204.80 27,151.57 272,848.43
2 4,183.78 27,006.56 245,841.87
3 4,162.75 27,051.25 218,790.62
4 4,141.73 26,934.72 191,855.90
5 4,120.70 26,691.17 165,164.73
6 4,099.68 26,147.05 139,017.68
7 4,078.66 26,315.78 112,701.90
8 4,057.63 26,150.91 86,550.99
9 4,036.61 25,972.93 60,578.06
10 4,015.58 25,805.85 34,772.21
11 3,994.56 25,648.65 9,123.56
12 3,973.54 25,513.07 (16,389.51)
13 3,952.51 25,325.55 (41,715.07)
14 3,931.49 25,162.23 (66,877.29)
15 3,910.46 24,999.90 (91,877.20)
16 3,889.44 24,836.74 (116,713.94)
17 3,868.42 24,672.83 (141,386.77)
18 3,847.39 24,507.26 (165,894.03)
19 3,826.37 24,345.67 (190,239.70)
20 3,805.34 24,182.22 (214,421.92)
21 3,784.32 24,018.70 (238,440.62)
22 3,763.30 23,855.24 (262,295.86)
23 3,742.27 23,691.84 (285,987.70)
24 3,721.25 23,528.57 (309,516.27)
25 3,700.22 23,364.99 (332,881.26)
Table4.4.8 presents the return of investment of Prosumer G. The inital investment
made was about Php 350,000.00. In 24 years, Prosumer G will get back their investment
Table 4.4.8
Return of Investment of Prosumer G

Year Total Savings
Produced Savings
Year kWh Php Php

1 2,803.20 16,301.05 333,698.95
2 2,789.18 16,204.37 317,494.58
3 2,775.17 16,234.17 301,260.41
4 2,761.15 16,156.48 285,103.94
5 2,747.14 15,994.11 269,109.82
6 2,733.12 15,631.37 253,478.45
7 2,719.10 15,743.85 237,734.60
8 2,705.09 15,633.94 222,100.66
9 2,691.07 15,515.29 206,585.37
10 2,677.06 15,403.90 191,181.47
11 2,663.04 15,299.10 175,882.37
12 2,649.02 15,208.71 160,673.66
13 2,635.01 15,083.70 145,589.96
14 2,620.99 14,974.82 130,615.14
15 2,606.98 14,866.60 115,748.54
16 2,592.96 14,757.83 100,990.71
17 2,578.94 14,648.55 86,342.15
18 2,564.93 14,538.17 71,803.98
19 2,550.91 14,430.45 57,373.53
20 2,536.90 14,321.48 43,052.05
21 2,522.88 14,212.47 28,839.58
22 2,508.86 14,103.49 14,736.09
23 2,494.85 13,994.56 741.53
24 2,480.83 13,885.71 (13,144.18)
25 2,466.82 13,776.66 (26,920.84)
Table 4.4.9 presents the return of investment of Prosumer H. The inital investment
made was about Php 240,000.00. In 8 years, Prosumer H will get back their investment
Table 4.4.9
Return of Investment of Prosumer H

Year Total Savings
Produced Savings
Year kWh Php Php

1 5,003.71 33,336.37 206,663.63
2 4,978.69 33,163.80 173,499.83
3 4,953.67 33,216.99 140,282.84
4 4,928.66 33,078.31 107,204.52
5 4,903.64 32,788.49 74,416.03
6 4,878.62 32,141.00 42,275.03
7 4,853.60 32,341.77 9,933.26
8 4,828.58 32,145.58 (22,212.32)
9 4,803.56 31,933.79 (54,146.11)
10 4,778.54 31,734.96 (85,881.07)
11 4,753.53 31,547.89 (117,428.97)
12 4,728.51 31,386.56 (148,815.52)
13 4,703.49 31,163.41 (179,978.93)
14 4,678.47 30,969.05 (210,947.98)
15 4,653.45 30,775.89 (241,723.86)
16 4,628.43 30,581.73 (272,305.59)
17 4,603.42 30,386.67 (302,692.26)
18 4,578.40 30,189.64 (332,881.90)
19 4,553.38 29,997.35 (362,879.24)
20 4,528.36 29,802.84 (392,682.09)
21 4,503.34 29,608.25 (422,290.34)
22 4,478.32 29,413.74 (451,704.08)
23 4,453.30 29,219.29 (480,923.37)
24 4,428.29 29,024.99 (509,948.36)
25 4,403.27 28,830.33 (538,778.70)
Table 4.4.10 presents the return of investment of Prosumer I. The inital investment
made was about Php 800,000.00. In 18 years, Prosumer I will get back their investment
Table 4.4.10
Return of Investment of Prosumer I

Year Total Savings
Produced Savings
Year kWh Php Php

1 9,110.00 49,400.31 750,599.69
2 9,064.45 49,086.12 701,513.57
3 9,018.90 49,182.96 652,330.61
4 8,973.35 48,930.48 603,400.13
5 8,927.80 48,402.82 554,997.31
6 8,882.25 47,223.95 507,773.36
7 8,836.70 47,589.50 460,183.86
8 8,791.15 47,232.30 412,951.57
9 8,745.60 46,846.70 366,104.86
10 8,700.05 46,484.71 319,620.15
11 8,654.50 46,144.12 273,476.03
12 8,608.95 45,850.38 227,625.65
13 8,563.40 45,444.11 182,181.54
14 8,517.85 45,090.25 137,091.29
15 8,472.30 44,738.57 92,352.73
16 8,426.75 44,385.07 47,967.66
17 8,381.20 44,029.94 3,937.72
18 8,335.65 43,671.22 (39,733.50)
19 8,290.10 43,321.12 (83,054.62)
20 8,244.55 42,967.00 (126,021.62)
21 8,199.00 42,612.72 (168,634.34)
22 8,153.45 42,258.57 (210,892.91)
23 8,107.90 41,904.55 (252,797.47)
24 8,062.35 41,550.81 (294,348.27)
25 8,016.80 41,196.40 (335,544.68)
Table 4.4.11 presents the return of investment of Prosumer J. The inital investment
made was about Php 1,200,000.00. Since they have a large initial investment, they will
not get their investment back from installing a net metering system.
Table 4.4.11
Return of Investment of Prosumer J

Year Total Savings
Produced Savings
Year kWh Php Php

1 4,204.80 27,151.57 1,172,848.43
2 4,183.78 27,006.56 1,145,841.87
3 4,162.75 27,051.25 1,118,790.62
4 4,141.73 26,934.72 1,091,855.90
5 4,120.70 26,691.17 1,065,164.73
6 4,099.68 26,147.05 1,039,017.68
7 4,078.66 26,315.78 1,012,701.90
8 4,057.63 26,150.91 986,550.99
9 4,036.61 25,972.93 960,578.06
10 4,015.58 25,805.85 934,772.21
11 3,994.56 25,648.65 909,123.56
12 3,973.54 25,513.07 883,610.49
13 3,952.51 25,325.55 858,284.93
14 3,931.49 25,162.23 833,122.71
15 3,910.46 24,999.90 808,122.80
16 3,889.44 24,836.74 783,286.06
17 3,868.42 24,672.83 758,613.23
18 3,847.39 24,507.26 734,105.97
19 3,826.37 24,345.67 709,760.30
20 3,805.34 24,182.22 685,578.08
21 3,784.32 24,018.70 661,559.38
22 3,763.30 23,855.24 637,704.14
23 3,742.27 23,691.84 614,012.30
24 3,721.25 23,528.57 590,483.73
25 3,700.22 23,364.99 567,118.74
4.5 Grid-Tied PV System Impact

This part of the chapter discusses the impact of grid-connected photovoltaic
systems on the secondary circuit of the power systems in which they are connected to.
Impact on the PV system to the prosumers’ residential electrical system, neighboring
consumers, and the distribution utility are presented in the succeeding information.
4.5.1 Prosumers
Solar photovoltaic cells provide electrical energy that can be utilized as a support
agent for power generation. With the help of net metering service of BATELEC II,
prosumers on the secondary side has an alternative power supply to support the energy
demand during daytime. Prosumers mentions that they use appliances that consumes
high energy during daytime, example given are air-conditioning unit, pump and washing
machine. For distribution utility pays lesser rate when prosumers exporting energy to the
grid than importing from the grid. Also, inverters are designed to utilize first the energy
harnessed by the solar system before consuming the energy given by the distribution
utility. To acquire a more comprehensive understanding in the standpoint of the consumer
side, survey questionnaires are given to the consumers who are utilizing a PV net metering
system and the customers who are under the same network with the net metered
consumer. To acquire the weighted mean, all answers by the customers are interpreted
using the formula stated in Chapter III of the study.

Figure 4.5.1
Perception of the Respondents on the Prosumers with Net Metering
Perception of the Respondents on the

Prosumers with Net Metering
4.90
QUESTION 11 3.20
4.40
QUESTION 9 4.20
2.90
QUESTION 7 4.10
4.20
QUESTION 5 3.50
4.30
QUESTION 3 4.10
4.60
QUESTION 1 4.70
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Scale
Source: Survey Questionnaire (See Table Appendix B)
There are 10 out of 14 consumers with net metering who were able to fill up the
survey form. The questions pertain to their experience prior to the connection of net
metering in their premises. For the questions, please refer to Appendix B. As shown in the
figure 4.5.1, it can be seen that most of the respondents of the survey have high ratings
regarding their installed net metering system. Installing a net metered solar power system
is highly recommended for people who want to save on their electric bills had the highest
weighted mean while it is easy to file an application for net metering had the lowest
weighted mean. The scale indicated in the graph was from 1-5, 1 being Strongly Disagree,
2 being Disagree, 3 being Undecided, 4 being Agree and 5 being Strongly Agree. For the
interpretation of results, consult to Appendix D.

4.5.2 Customers on the secondary circuit
Table 4.5.2 shows the current in amperes delivered by the transformer to the
secondary circuit where the prosumers are connected.
Table 4.5.2
Amperes delivered by the transformer
2015 No 2016 No 2017 No 2018 No 2018 With

Prosumer net Meter net Meter net Meter net Meter net Meter
(A) (A) (A) (A) (A)
A 11.7 14 13.4 13.2 10

B 18.8 22.8 26.2 27.2 23.6
C 21.7 24 29 28.2 20.7
D 18.8 22.8 26.2 27.2 23.6
E 4.2 6 5.1 4.8 1.2
F 20.7 22 22.1 21.4 13.9
G 25 27.4 30.5 34 37
H 60.1 69.7 68 82.6 65.3
I 11 14.6 12.9 13.1 5.5
J 0 0 4.7 5 2
From the short review above, key findings emerge that the current on the
secondary side decreased when the net meter operates in year 2018 of the specified
month for each prosumer. This is an important finding in the understanding of the impact
on the consumers connected on the same network with prosumer. As the transformer
loading decreases, the current delivered also decreases. This can be interpreted as that
net metering scheme helps the network in delivering current to other customers connected
on the same network. Additionally, prosumer J’s data of 2015 and 2016 is not available
because the prosumer started their connection to BATELEC II on the year 2017.
As shown in the figure below, it can be seen that most of the respondents of the survey
agree on having an urge to install their own net metering system. Having an urge to install
and apply your own net metering system had the highest weighted mean while disturbance
in the flow of electricity in your residence had the lowest weighted mean.
Figure 4.5.2
Perception of the Respondents on the Consumers in the Same Network
with Net Metering
Perception of the Respondents on the Consumers in the
Same Network with Net Metering
QUESTION 5 4.00
QUESTION 4 2.77
QUESTION 3 3.09
QUESTION 2 2.77
QUESTION 1 2.68
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Scale
Source: Survey Questionnaire

See Table Appendix for the questions
The researchers also gathered data from the customers who are under the same
network as the consumer with a net metering system. There were 22 respondents who
are able to answer the said questionnaire. The questions pertain to their experience prior
to the connection of net metering by their co-consumer within the same network. For the
questions, please refer to Appendix A. The scale indicated in the graph was from 1-5, 1
being Strongly Disagree, 2 being Disagree, 3 being Undecided, 4 being Agree and 5 being
Strongly Agree. For the interpretation of results, consult to Appendix C.

4.5.3 Distribution Utility
Power distribution on the consumer is made possible by the distribution
transformer. However, there are some changes and effects during selling of electricity in
the distribution utility.
Table 4.5.3 shows the distribution transformer details related to the technical
impact related to net metering service of BATELEC II.
Table 4.5.3
Distribution transformer condition
Transformer Transformer
Transformer Number of Number of
Loading Before Loading After
Prosumer Rating Customers Customers
Net-Metering Net-Metering
(kVA) (2015) (2018)
(%) (%)
A 50 18 20 9.25 7.98
B 50 51 51 16.44 9.60
C 15 35 42 61.74 58.68
D 25 59 70 32.7 38.51
E 25 3 3 6.72 1.98
F 50 31 31 16.52 11.08
G 37.5 47 48 26.59 39.3
H 75 32 42 31.9 34.67
I 37.5 13 15 15.46 5.83
J 50 1 1 3.76 1.58
Based on table 4.5.3 results in the simulations using the ETAP software, power
factors vary before and after the installation of net metering scheme to the prosumers. The
decrease in power factor means that the secondary network consumes lesser real power
than before, given that the secondary network has a customer that has net metering
service connected to the transformer. The transformer delivers its rated power to the
consumers, however the prosumer on the secondary side uses first the harnessed energy
by the solar system before using the power delivered by the grid. This means that the
energy delivered is not fully utilized by the secondary network. However, there is a case
where the power factor decreases drastically because of high rating solar power system
connected into a transformer. Low power factor will decrease the useful life of the
transformer and it will be loss to the distribution utility.
In case of customer J, which is the only consumer on the 50-kVA transformer, the
loading is only 1.58% of the rated capacity. The results demonstrate two things. First, the
solar system has little effect on the distribution transformer. Second, the transformer
operates at underload condition. According to “Harmonic Current and Voltage Distortion”
in the November 2002 issue of EC&M. Harmonic voltage distortion has little effect on the
operation of nonlinear load or AC electrical loads where the voltage and current
waveforms are sinusoidal. The major effect of the under-loaded transformer is an increase
in energy waste and, therefore, operating costs. The energy required to energize a
transformer is proportional to the size of the transformer, all other factors (impedance,
temperature rise, etc.) being equal.

5 Chapter-4 Last-Tawad

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 Chapter-4 Last-Tawad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION OF DATA, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

better understanding of net metering.

4.1.1 Installed Photovoltaic System Parameters

prosumers’ households including total number of panels, PV system capacity in

each system. Installation months all occurred in the year of 2018.

Total PV Inverter Month of

Prosumers connected to BATELEC II have photovoltaic array systems that have

capacities ranging from 1.5 to 6.5 kilowatt-peak. Prosumer A has a PV system

consisting of 8 panels, with two sets of four series-connected panels operating in

connected panels operating in parallel. Prosumer C has a total of 20 panels installed,

required an increased capacity of inverter. Prosumer D has a total of 8 panels installed,

connected panels connected in parallel. Prosumer G has eight installed PV panels in

is a matter of personal preference. An inverter can be oversized to allow for future

reasonable approach. However the engineering and design needs to be spot on or

and allows overclocking of up to 30% within guidelines.

4.1.2 Energy Consumption

Energy consumption historical data in kilowatt-hours of the prosumers involved in

different historical data presented.

December 2018 appearing on the electric bills.

Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

December 2018 appearing on the electric bills.

Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

Table 4.1.2.3 shows the energy consumption of prosumer C from January

2015 to December 2018 appearing on the electric bills.

Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

December 2018 appearing on the electric bills.

Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

December 2018 appearing on the electric bills.

Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

December 2018 appearing on the electric bills.

Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

December 2018 appearing on the electric bills.

Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

December 2018 appearing on the electric bills.

Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

December 2018 appearing on the electric bills.

Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

December 2018 appearing on the electric bills.

the year 2017 as reference for the study.

4.1.3 Electricity Rates

The rates are in units of Php/kWh.

Month 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Table 4.1.3.1 shows the electricity rates being charged by BATELEC II to

4.1.4 Photovoltaic Electricity Output

Electricity generation capability of solar photovoltaic arrays depend on the

installation location. The province of Batangas in particular, receives a generous

are shown on the figure below.

Figure 4.1.4.1Annual Sun Hours in the Philippines

demands in the most recent years.

4.2.1 Average Demand

Table 4.2.1.1 shows the monthly average demand of prosumer A in Watts

during the period of January 2017 to December 2018.

Month 2017 2018

1028 Watts for 495.

Table 4.2.1.2 shows the monthly average demand of prosumer B in Watts

during the period of January 2017 to December 2018.

Month 2017 2018

Watts for 2018.

the period of January 2017 to December 2018.