*4.3. Di*ff*erent Selling Prices Generates Various Business Opportunities*

Assuming that the shared PV system is owned by a single entity in a LEP (Local Energy Provider) arrangement, this entity enjoys freedom in setting the price for the sale of electricity. This freedom is nevertheless constrained by the LCOE of the PV system and by the price offered by the parent grid. If the LEP sells electricity at a higher price than the parent-grid it will have no purchaser among the households. This happens because the grid has the capacity to satisfy 100% of the demand of the whole district at any time. For this reason, a coefficient "n" has been devised so that: n = 0 is the LCOE of the local system and n = 100 is the sale of energy at the exact same price as from the parent grid. It has been shown that at n = 0, despite selling at production cost, the lifetime balance is < 0. This is due to the self-consumption being below 100% (i.e., ca 85%), hence ca. 15% of the energy produced being sold at spot price (i.e., 0.3–0.15 SEK/kWh or 3–1.5 € cent/kWh). This loss also explains why in the LEC LCOE arrangement some households still have a negative lifetime balance, as demonstrated in Figure 11b. Another interesting selling price is the one obtained with n = 9.43% because this is the price at which no profit or loss is made from the LEP. This price tag, albeit unattractive as an investment for a third-party PV owner, presents an interesting way for building owners to substitute other claddings on their properties. Using this selling price offers in fact a building material that, contrary to every other, does not cost anything over its lifetime. If applied as common price in a LEC it allows all households

to have a positive lifetime economic balance, yet to have individual differences in earnings. It should be said that this price was determined at the end of a previous run when the overall self-consumption was already known. In a real case, to obtain such an equilibrium, the price should be updated at any point in time according to the evolution of self-consumption and energy prices. Selling energy at the price of the parent grid (n = 100) could be an interesting investment as it guarantees the LEP with a real IRR of around 3%; it provides no economic benefits for the household consumers, but it gives them the ability to boost their reliance on renewable without any upfront cost or risk. Furthermore, the possibility for the households to buy voluntarily sized shares of the LEP could kick start a set of tantalising business opportunities.
