Nichos de Mercado Energia Solar Mexico

Nichos de mercado para sistemas
fotovoltaicos en conexión a la red

eléctrica en México
Nichos de mercado para sistemas fotovoltaicos
en conexión a la red eléctrica en México
La Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía (Conuee) agradece a la Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH (Cooperación Técnica Alemana) por
el desarrollo del estudio presente. La colaboración de la GTZ se realizó por encargo del
Ministerio Federal Alemán de Cooperación Económica y Desarollo (BMZ) y en el marco de
cooperación técnica entre México y Alemania. El documento no necesariamente representa la
opinión de la Conuee y/o de la GTZ. Se autoriza la reproducción parcial o total, siempre y
cuando sea sin fines de lucro y se cite la fuente de referencia.
Junio 2009
Impreso en México
Imprenta: Forever Print S.A. de C.V.
Tiraje: 1000 (Edición Junio 2009)
Edición y Supervisión: André Eckermann, Sebastian Hack, Valentina Barzalobre

Autor: Martin Amtmann
Diseño: Conuee
Fotografía: Ministerio Federal Alemán para el Medioambiente, la Conservación de Naturaleza y
la Seguridad Nuclear (BMU)
© Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía (Conuee)

Río Lerma No. 302
Col. Cuauhtémoc,
Del. Cuauhtémoc
C.P. 06500, México D.F.
www.conuee.gob.mx
© Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Dag-Hammerskjöld-Weg 1-5
65760 Eschborn/Alemania
www.gtz.de
Dirección en México:
Oficina de Representación de la GTZ en México
Torre Hemicor
Av. Insurgentes Sur No. 826, Piso 11
Col. Del Valle
Del. Benito Juárez
C.P. 03100, México, D.F.
www.gtz.de/mexico
gtz-mexiko@gtz.de
ii
Nichos de Mercado para sistemas fotovoltaicos en conexión a la red eléctrica en México
Resumen Ejecutivo
- Resumen Ejecutivo -
iii
Resumen Ejecutivo
Resumen ejecutivo
Antecedentes y motivación
México cuenta con condiciones naturales muy favorables para la aplicación de sistemas
fotovoltaicos. En muchas partes de su extenso territorio, la radiación solar promedio es el doble
de, por ejemplo, los países de Europa como Alemania, que actualmente es uno de los mayores
mercados fotovoltaicos en el mundo. El inmenso potencial de México, la segunda economía
más grande de Latinoamérica, ha sido escasamente explotado hasta ahora. Actualmente, el
país tiene instalada, tan solo, una capacidad de aproximadamente 19.7 MW p de sistemas
fotovoltaicos, comparados con una capacidad instalada de 3,800 MW p en Alemania. Debido al
incremento en los precios de la energía y a la creciente conciencia pública sobre el impacto
negativo de los combustibles fósiles, el sol, como fuente potencial de energía, ha despertado
cada vez mayor interés en las autoridades mexicanas. En julio de 2007 el organismo regulador
del sector de gas y electricidad en México (CRE - Comisión Reguladora de Energía) aprobó una
resolución que ofrece a los inversionistas la posibilidad de instalar sistemas fotovoltaicos
conectados a la red nacional en pequeña escala (hasta 10 kW p para hogares y 30kW p para
empresas). Esta interconexión, es regulada bajo el principio de Medición Neta de Energía (Net
Metering) que permite compensar el costo de la electricidad utilizada con la energía aportada a
la red nacional. Esta resolución genera oportunidades para un amplio uso de sistemas
fotovoltaicos en México – más allá del uso de sistemas aislados y desconectados de la red
eléctrica, que predominan actualmente. Como consecuencia, existe cada vez más, gente
interesada en información respecto a la factibilidad financiera del uso de sistemas fotovoltaicos
en conexión a la red eléctrica en México.
Objetivo y alcance
Dada la actualmente limitada información disponible, referente a la factibilidad financiera de los
sistemas fotovoltaicos conectados a la red eléctrica en México, se plantearon como objetivos
principales de este estudio:
 identificar nichos de mercado para un uso financieramente viable de sistemas
fotovoltaicos en el sector residencial en México, así como en los sectores industrial y de
servicios, analizando si el uso de sistemas fotovoltaicos en dichos éstos sectores
permiten ahorrar costos desde la perspectiva de un inversionista, comparado con la
compra de toda la electricidad a la red nacional de energía,
 especificar el tamaño de estos nichos de mercado en los sectores anteriormente
mencionados, en términos de capacidad (en MWp) y en términos de volumen de mercado
(en dólares americanos),
 identificar y dimensionar el impacto de los subsidios en los nichos de mercado, dada su
relevancia para el gobierno o una perspectiva macro. Este análisis está limitado al sector
residencial, debido a los escasos datos disponibles en el sector industrial y de servicios.
Para el sector residencial, el estudio se limitó a 29 ciudades mexicanas que fueron identificadas
por la Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía (Conuee). Para cada ciudad, se
v
Resumen Ejecutivo
consideraron dos opciones de sistemas fotovoltaicos. La primera opción es un sistema

fotovoltaico, diseñado para suministrar el total del consumo anual de energía eléctrica del hogar
(opción de suministro total). En la segunda opción, el sistema está diseñado para suministrar
sólo la cantidad de energía eléctrica necesaria, a fin de cambiar a una tarifa de menor precio
(opción de suministro parcial).
Los sectores industrial y de servicios, se analizaron conjuntamente porque comparten las
mismas tarifas. Para cada tarifa, se seleccionaron las tres regiones que representan la tarifa
más baja, la intermedia y la más alta. Los sistemas fueron diseñados para suministrar el 5% del
consumo total anual de energía eléctrica de una compañía.
Este estudio, se limitó al análisis de sistemas fotovoltaicos como alternativa a la compra de
electricidad a la red nacional. Otras medidas y tecnologías, como el uso eficiente de la energía
(por ejemplo iluminación eficiente) u otras tecnologías de energía renovable, no fueron
consideradas.
Consideraciones metodológicas y escenarios

Los nichos de mercado en este estudio, están definidos como oportunidades para el uso
financieramente factible de sistemas fotovoltaicos, conectados a la red eléctrica en México.
Metodológicamente, los nichos de mercado fueron identificados comparando el costo de
generación de un sistema fotovoltaico, con el costo de compra de la energía eléctrica a la red
nacional, bajo las tarifas eléctricas en México. La comparación de costos, entre la factura
mensual y el respectivo costo del sistema fotovoltaico, se realizó con los valores presentes
netos, para un periodo de 20 años. Es decir, se define un nicho de mercado cuando los costos
totales del consumo de electricidad a 20 años, con un sistema fotovoltaico, resulta inferior al
costo de la misma cantidad de electricidad sin este sistema. Los volúmenes de consumo
eléctrico, se consideraron fijos durante los 20 años, en cada sector. Los parámetros usados
para el cálculo de los valores presentes netos y la comparación de costos, así como los
parámetros clave del sistema fotovoltaico, se muestran en la Tabla 1.
Los costos de inversión específicos, para un sistema fotovoltaico, se calcularon diseñando
sistemas fotovoltaicos particulares para niveles significativos de consumo seleccionados,
multiplicando la respectiva capacidad del sistema (kW p) por precios de mercado, obtenidos
específicamente para este estudio a través de una encuesta de mercado. Cabe mencionar que,
los precios actuales de los módulos fotovoltaicos en el mercado en México, siguen siendo
considerablemente mayores en comparación a los de Alemania o Estados Unidos. Las razones
que explican esta diferencia, pueden deberse a que el mercado mexicano es aún muy pequeño
y la mayoría de los módulos son importados. Debido a que, tanto la industria fotovoltaica como
la Agencia Internacional de la Energía (AIE) esperan una reducción considerable en los precios
de los sistemas fotovoltaicos durante los próximos años, el estudio considera tres escenarios
posibles para los precios por kW p instalado.
 Escenario 1 “Precios actuales” identificados en una encuesta de mercado en otoño de
2007 en México
 Escenario 2 “Perspectiva conservadora” tomando en cuenta una reducción en el precio
de 20%, para los próximos 5 años
 Escenario 3 “Perspectiva optimista” tomando en cuenta una reducción de 50% en el
precio, para los próximos 5 años
vi
Resumen Ejecutivo
El análisis del segundo y tercer escenario, calculado con las tarifas esperadas, para un periodo
de 5 años. Estas tarifas, se calcularon suponiendo una tasa anual de incremento de las tarifas
de electricidad, tal y como se muestra en la Tabla 1. Los volúmenes de consumo utilizados para
el análisis fueron identificados en base a la estructura de los grupos tarifarios respectivos. En el
sector residencial existen siete tarifas diferentes (1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F), cada una
correspondientes a una región climática distinta (véase Tabla 2) y una tarifa adicional (Tarifa
Doméstica de Alto Consumo - DAC) correspondiente a los hogares que exceden cierto límite
superior de consumo. El precio respectivo por kilowatt-hora en cada tarifa, varía debido a
factores como la estación, el mes y el volumen de consumo.
Las tarifas residenciales están subestructuradas por rangos de consumo. La lógica de estos
rangos es que, mientras mayor consumo tenga un hogar, mayor será la tarifa que se le aplicará.
En la opción de un sistema fotovoltaico, que suministra sólo cierta cantidad de la electricidad
total, utilizada en el hogar (suministro parcial) el sistema fue diseñado para generar,
específicamente, la cantidad necesaria de energía para que aplique una tarifa más baja. Para
los sistemas que generan toda la electricidad utilizada (suministro total), los límites del rango de
consumo de cada tarifa fueron seleccionados como volúmenes de consumo hipotéticos,
siguiendo la premisa de que si el sistema fotovoltaico resulta ser una alternativa más barata a
cierta tarifa, ésto sucederá en el punto donde la tarifa respectiva cambia de una más alta a una
más baja. Por ejemplo, para la Tarifa 1, el cambio sucede para volúmenes de consumo de 140
y 250 kWh, por lo que los volúmenes de consumo 140, 249 y 250 kWh, se utilizaron para el
análisis.
vii
Resumen Ejecutivo
Tabla 1: Parámetros clave y suposiciones
Sector residencial Sectores industrial y de servicios

Escenario 1 Escenario 2 Escenario 3 Escenario 1 Escenario 2 Escenario 3
"Precios "Perspectiva "Perspectiva "Precios "Perspectiva "Perspectiva
actuales" conser- optimista" actuales" conser- optimista"
vadora" vadora"
1- 50 kWp 101.000 80.800 50.500
Escenarios de costos de
inversión 50-100 kWp 96.500 77.200 48.250
103.000 82.400 51.500
(impuesto incluido)
100-300 kWp 92.200 73.760 46.100
[$/kWp]
300-500 kWp 90.200 72.160 45.100
Tasa de descuento 8%
Impuesto al valor agregado 15%
Costos anuales para O&M como porcentaje

del costo de inversión para el sistema 0,80% 0,50%
fotovoltaico
Tasa anual de incremento de precios de las

8% 7%
tarifas de electricidad
Módulos fotovoltaicos
Tipo Policristalino
Eficiencia 16%
Vida útil 20 años
Tasa de desempeño (Performance ratio) 0.73
Pérdida de eficiencia debida a
0.5 %/°C No se supone pérdida de eficiencia
temperaturas mayores a los 25 °C
Fuente: Elaboración propia
La estructura de tarifas para los sectores industrial y de servicios, es diferente a la del sector
residencial. La tarifa que se aplica, depende del tipo de conexión a la red nacional (baja tensión,
media tensión y alta tensión), que a su vez, depende de la demanda máxima de electricidad
requerida por el usuario. Además, estas tarifas varían durante el día, debido a la diferencia
entre los periodos de carga base, intermedia y de punta. Por consiguiente, el análisis de este
sector resulta mucho más complejo, dada la importancia de la potencia eléctrica requerida, la
diferencia entre los diferentes periodos de carga y las características particulares de consumo
de distintas ramas industriales y de servicios. Esta complejidad, hizo que el análisis de ésta
parte del estudio, se realizara de un modo más general. Para cada tarifa, se seleccionó un
consumo eléctrico bajo, medio y alto. Posteriormente, se analizó el impacto de un sistema
fotovoltaico que generara el 5% de este consumo. La tabla siguiente, muestra la estructura
básica de tarifas para el sector residencial y para los de industria y de servicios en México.
viii
Resumen Ejecutivo
Tabla 2: Estructura básica de tarifas para el sector residencial y el sector industrial y servicios
Sector residencial Sectores industrial y de servicios
Temperatura promedio Tarifa Tarifa

Tensión Demanda máxima/ Nivel de transmisión
mínima durante verano aplicada aplicada
< 25°C 1 < 25 kW 2

Baja
≥ 25°C y < 28°C 1A ≥ 25 kW 3
≥ 28°C y < 30°C 1B < 100 kW O-M
30°C 1C Media ≥ 100 kW H-M
31°C 1D ≥ 100 kW, short-time utilisation H-MC
32°C 1E subtransmisión H-S
≥ 33°C 1F subtransmisión, periodo de utilización largo H-SL

Alta
transmisión H-T
transmisión, periodo de utilización largo H-TL
Adicionalmente al análisis, desde la perspectiva del inversionista (perspectiva micro) y para

identificar el impacto de los subsidios en los nichos de mercado y su tamaño, para el sector
residencial, se realizaron para cada escenario dos anáslisis desde un punto de vista macro,
considerando diferentes supuestos:
 Perspectiva macro “Sin cambio de tarifa” suponiendo que no existe la posibilidad de
cambiar a una tarifa más barata. Los nichos de mercado, identificados de esta forma, no
cubren aquellos casos en los que el sistema fotovoltaico resulta financieramente viable,
debido a un cambio de tarifa más subvencionada y, por lo tanto, más barata.
 Perspectiva macro “Sin subsidios” suponiendo tarifas reflejando los costos de suministro
de electricidad y libres de subsidios. Bajo esta perspectiva, se asume una sustitución de
todas las tarifas existentes por la tarifa DAC, de la cual se supone que representa una
tarifa eléctrica que cubre los costos respectivos. Esto, permite identificar nichos de
mercado en un mundo libre de subsidios y proporciona una idea más clara de la
competitividad real de los sistemas fotovoltaicos, en el sector eléctrico mexicano.
Principales resultados para el sector residencial (perspectiva micro)

Escenario 1: “Precios y nichos actuales” (103,000 $/kW p)
 La electricidad generada con sistemas fotovoltaicos tiene siempre un costo mayor que la
electricidad consumida de la red nacional sin este sistema: Si se aplican los precios
actuales para sistemas fotovoltaicos, el estudio muestra que para un periodo de 20 años,
el costo promedio por kilowatt-hora generado en un hogar con un sistema fotovoltaico,
será siempre más alto que el promedio de la tarifa respectiva sin el uso de un sistema
fotovoltaico en el mismo periodo.
 Nichos de mercado para algunos consumidores DAC: Sin embargo, en algunos casos, la
opción del suministro parcial mediante un sistema fotovoltaico, resultó ser más
ix
Resumen Ejecutivo
económica que comprar toda la electricidad requerida a la red eléctrica. La razón de ésto
es el cambio hacia una tarifa más baja, causado por la reducción de la electricidad
consumida de la red al generar parte de la electricidad con el sistema fotovoltaico. Este
efecto genera ahorros en el periodo de 20 años, sólo para los hogares que consuman en
la tarifa residencial más elevada (DAC) en un número limitado de ciudades, utilizando un
sistema fotovoltaico, sólo hasta cierto tamaño y en general, sólo en regiones que
presentan una radiación cercana al promedio nacional o mayor. Si la parte de la energía
eléctrica suministrada por el sistema fotovoltaico, supera un punto crítico, el incremento
en los costos de inversión para el sistema fotovoltaico, será mayor al impacto de la caída
en la tarifa, por lo que “este nicho desaparece”.
Figura 1: Derivación de los nichos indicados
Sistema FV para suministro eléctrico parcial

Costos de
Tarifa [$/kWh] generación [$/kWh]
Precio promedio = (Tarifa * Porcentaje) + (Costos de generación FV * Porcentaje)
Cuando:
Precio promedio < Tarifa original* Nicho
También cuando:
Costos deElaboración
Fuente: generaciónpropia
FV > Tarifa original*
* tarifa original = tarifa antes del cambio de tarifa por suministro parcial con FV
 Tamaño de los nichos de mercado: Sólo el 2% de los hogares mexicanos dentro de las
28 ciudades seleccionadas forma parte de los nichos descritos. Esto es equivalente a
casi 90,000 hogares. El Distrito Federal (Ciudad de México) no se considera, debido a la
falta de datos relativos al número de hogares y sus volúmenes de consumo. El tamaño
de los nichos alcanza los 81 MW, equivalentes a aproximadamente 608 millones de
dólares con los precios del Escenario 1 (véase Tabla 4). El nicho corresponde a las
ciudades marcadas con una cruz en la Tabla 3.
 Conclusión: Con los precios actuales, las posibilidades de un ahorro económico con la
aplicación de sistemas fotovoltaicos conectados a la red eléctrica, son muy limitadas en
el sector residencial mexicano.
x
Resumen Ejecutivo
Tabla 3: Nichos de mercado por ciudad

Escenario 1 Escenario 2 Escenario 3
Tarifa Ciudad menor menor menor
DAC a DAC DAC a DAC DAC a DAC
Durango X X X X X
Oaxaca X X X X X
1 Guadalajara X X X X X
Puebla X X X X X
D..F X X X X X
Cuautla X X X X
Tepic X X X X X
1A
Nogales X X X X X
Los Tuxtlas X X X X X
Chihuahua X X X X X
Acapulco X X X X X
1B
Poza Rica X X X X X
Riviera Maya X X X X X
Juárez X X X
Monterrey X X X
1C
Tampico X X X
Mérida X X X X
Mazatlán X X X
La Paz X X X X X
1D
Matamoros X X X X X
Cd. Altamirano X X X X X
Culiacán X X X
Guaymas X X X X X
1E
Reynosa X X X
Piedras Negras X X X
Mexicali X X
San Luis Rio Colorado X X
1F
Cd. Obregón X X
Hermosillo X X
Escenario 2 “Perspectiva conservadora” (82,400 $/kW p)

 Los costos de generación fotovoltaica, para altos volúmenes de consumo, son menores
que el costo de la tarifa sin el sistema fotovoltaico. El segundo escenario muestra que,
para casi todos los hogares que pagan la tarifa DAC, cualquiera de las opciones con
sistema fotovoltaico son más económicas, ya sea de suministro parcial o total. Esto
quiere decir que los sistemas también ahorran costos si se suministra el total de la
energía eléctrica requerida por un hogar. Además, esto muestra que en estos casos, el
costo promedio de generación por kilowatt-hora con el sistema fotovoltaico en el periodo
de 20 años es menor que el costo promedio que se tendría que pagar con tarifa DAC si
no se contara con un sistema fotovoltaico.
xi
Resumen Ejecutivo
 Los nichos de mercado no están limitados a consumidores DAC: En el rango de

consumo de DAC, los sistemas fotovoltaicos permiten ahorrar en cualquier tarifa a
excepción de la 1F. Incluso, es posible obtener ahorros económicos en cualquier tarifa, a
excepción de la 1C y la 1F, en el rango de consumo inferior más próximo a DAC en las
ciudades con una radiación solar mayor a 5 kWh/m2/d, debido al efecto de caída de la
tarifa alta a una más baja como se explicó anteriormente. El rango de consumo inferior
más próximo a DAC no es económico para la Tarifa 1C porque no existe una ciudad con
las características de radiación requerida en esa región (mayor a 5 kWh/m 2/d) y, en el
caso de la Tarifa 1F porque no se aplica la Tarifa DAC durante el verano.
 Tamaño de los nichos de mercado: Los nichos descritos incluirían al 17% de los hogares
mexicanos de las 28 ciudades incluidas, equivalente a casi un millón de hogares. El
tamaño de este nicho de mercado alcanza los 693 MW, equivalente a aproximadamente
5,190 millones de dólares con los precios del Escenario 2 (véase Tabla 4). En cada una
de las ciudades analizadas existe algún nicho de mercado (véase Tabla 3).
 Conclusión: Este escenario muestra que es muy probable que los consumidores
cercanos a los límites de la Tarifa DAC (superiores o inferiores a ésta) disfrutarán, en
aproximadamente 5 años, de costos de generación por kilowatt-hora con sistemas
fotovoltaicos menores al precio por kilowatt-hora, sin dichos sistemas. Ésto genera
importantes oportunidades de mercado y de ahorro económico, relacionadas con los
sistemas fotovoltaicos conectados a la red eléctrica en México, para diversos niveles de
consumo.
Escenario 3 “Perspectiva optimista” (51,500 $/kWp)
 Ahorro con sistemas fotovoltaicos en la mayoría de los casos: Para este escenario,
existe un gran potencial de ahorros mediante el uso de sistemas fotovoltaicos para todas
las tarifas residenciales. En todas las regiones consideradas, es posible tener
aplicaciones económicamente favorables en los rangos inferiores más cercanos a la
tarifa DAC.
 Grandes nichos de mercado para usuarios con mediano y alto consumo: Para todas las
ciudades consideradas en el estudio, existe la posibilidad de ahorrar costos en los
rangos inferiores más cercanos a la Tarifa DAC, tanto con suministro parcial como con
suministro total por un sistema fotovoltaico. En todas las tarifas, a excepción de la 1F, los
costos de generación con el sistema fotovoltaico son aún más bajos que la tarifa
promedio que se tendría que pagar en el rango de consumo inferior más próximo a la
Tarifa DAC sin el sistema fotovoltaico. Sólo en el rango inferior de consumo, el costo de
generación utilizando el sistema fotovoltaico, es aún mayor que la tarifa eléctrica.
 Tamaño de los nichos de mercado: Los nichos de mercado descritos, aplican para 27%
de los hogares de las 28 ciudades incluidas en el estudio, equivalentes a cerca de 1.5
millones de hogares. El tamaño de este nicho es de 1,336 MW, equivalente a 6,225
millones de dólares, aproximadamente, con los precios del Escenario 3 (véase Tabla 4).
En cada una de las ciudades analizadas existe un nicho de mercado (véase Tabla 3).
 Conclusión: Este escenario muestra claramente que, si los precios se reducen a la mitad,
los sistemas fotovoltaicos se convertirían en una alternativa económica en México para
cualquier volumen de consumo que exceda el rango de consumo mínimo. Esto
representaría un mercado fotovoltaico promisorio para atraer una gran inversión privada.
xii
Resumen Ejecutivo
La Tabla 4 da una visión general del tamaño de los nichos de mercado para los tres escenarios.
Tabla 4: Tamaño de los nichos en el sector residencial (perspectiva micro)
Rango de
Capacidad Tamaño del
Hogares tamaño del
Escenario "Top 5" potencial nicho
[#] sistemas FV
[MW] [mill. USD]
[kW]
1 Guadalajara 28 45,981 207
2 Chihuahua 9 14,941 67
1 3 Puebla 7 10,993 49
"Nichos 4 Poza Rica 6 9,994 45
actuales" 5 Acapulco 5 7,713 35
Total "Top 5" 54 89,622 403
Total 28 Ciudades 81 133,499 608
2%
1 Guadalajara 174 388,224 1,302 0.1 - 1.3
2 Cuautla 52 73,297 392 0.6 - 1.9
2 3 Chihuahua 50 60,298 376 0.1 - 2.9
"Perspectiva 4 Nogales 44 47,799 332 0.6 - 1.9
conservadora" 5 Puebla 41 89,854 306 0.1 - 1.3
Total "Top 5" 362 659,471 2,708
Total 28 Ciudades 693 956,629 5,190
17%
1 Guadalajara 174 388,224 814 0.1 - 1.3
2 Mexicali 141 44,606 659 0.2 - 15.5
3 3 Monterrey 124 110,034 581 0.1 - 3.7
"Perspectiva 4 Cd. Juarez 88 86,143 413 0.1 - 3.7
optimista" 5 Tampico 66 55,366 307 0.1 - 3.7
Total "Top 5" 593 684,372 2,774
Total 28 Ciudades 1,336 1,486,362 6,255
27%
Principales resultados para el sector residencial (perspectiva macro)

Perspectiva Macro “Sin cambio de tarifa”
 Para el Escenario 1 no existen nichos de mercado.
 Para el Escenario 2 y 3 existen nichos de mercado significativos, a pesar del supuesto
desfavorable.
Perspectiva Macro “Sin subsidios”
 Para el Escenario 1 no existen nichos de mercado.
 Para el Escenario 2 y 3 existen enormes nichos de mercado. Comparando los nichos
xiii
Resumen Ejecutivo
encontrados en el análisis del sector residencial desde la perspectiva micro, el nicho en

MW/h en la perspectiva macro “sin subsidios” es 560% mayor en el Escenario 2, y 450%
en el Escenario 3.
Conclusión
 Los subsidios causan distorsiones de mercado significativas, lo cual representa una
desventaja para la aplicación de los sistemas fotovoltaicos.
 Los sistemas fotovoltaicos ofrecen un gran potencial para el gobierno mexicano, para
reducir los subsidios, por un lado, y suministrar energía económica y limpia a gran parte
de la población, por el otro.
La Tabla 5 muestra el tamaño total de los nichos de mercado para los escenarios de las
perspectivas macro “Sin cambio de tarifa” y “Sin subsidios”.
Tabla 5: Tamaño total de los nichos de mercado de la perspectiva macro
Perspectiva Macro "Sin cambio de tarifa"

Capacidad Tamaño
Hogares
Escenario potencial del Nicho
[MW] [#] [mill. USD]
1
sin nichos
"Nichos actuales"
2
516 224,462 3,867
"Perspectiva conservadora"
3
1,812 824,533 8,482
"Perspectiva optimista"
Perspectiva macro "Sin subsidios"
1
sin nichos
"Nichos actuales"
2
4,580 5,607,111 34,308
"Perspectiva conservadora"
3
7,328 5,607,111 34,308
"Perspectiva optimista"
Principales resultados para los sectores industrial y de servicios

Los siguientes resultados, se refieren a nichos de mercado para compañías que compran su
energía eléctrica en alguna de las “tarifas generales” (Tarifa 2, 3, O-M, H-M, H-MC, H-S, H-SL,
H-T, H-TL). Como se mencionó anteriormente, el análisis compara una situación en la que no
se cuenta con un sistema fotovoltaico con una en la que se invierte en un sistema fotovoltaico,
que suministra el 5% de la electricidad demandada por la compañía.
xiv
Resumen Ejecutivo
Escenario 1 “Precios actuales”

 La electricidad generada con un sistema fotovoltaico, es siempre más cara que la
electricidad adquirida de la red eléctrica sin el sistema fotovoltaico: Para los sectores
industrial y de servicios, el análisis no encontró ningún caso en el que un sistema
fotovoltaico ayude a reducir costos con los precios del Escenario 1. Es decir,
actualmente, no existe ningún nicho para la generación económicamente viable del 5%
de la electricidad consumida, a través de sistemas fotovoltaicos en los sectores industrial
y de servicios.
Escenario 2 “Perspectiva conservadora”

 Nichos para aplicaciones fotovoltaicas en las Tarifas 2 y 3: El Escenario 2 muestra los
primeros nichos para aplicaciones económicas de los sistemas fotovoltaicos en los
sectores industrial y de servicios en México. Estos nichos existen en todas las regiones
de la Tarifa 2, e incluso para regiones de Tarifa 3, que presentan alta radiación solar, de
alrededor de 6 kWh/m2/d.
 Tamaño de los nichos de mercado: Aunque a primera vista puede parecer que este
nicho es muy pequeño, es necesario notar que la Tarifa 2 incluye cerca del 93% de todos
los usuarios de las “Tarifas generales”. En total, este nicho incluye aproximadamente 2.5
millones de empresas (véase Tabla 6). Debido a limitaciones de datos no fue factible
cuantificar los nichos en MW y volúmenes de mercado en términos financieros.
 Conclusión: Dado que las reducciones en los precios consideradas en este escenario
son relativamente conservadoras, se puede esperar que para la mayoría de las
empresas mexicanas, los sistemas fotovoltaicos se conviertan en una opción interesante
en los próximos años.
Escenario 3 “Perspectiva optimista”

 Nichos para sistemas fotovoltaicos en las tarifas 2, 3, O-M y H-MC: El Escenario 3
muestra nichos en las Tarifas 2 y 3 para una radiación solar promedio de 4, 5 y 6
kWh/m2/d (que prácticamente cubre todo el territorio mexicano habitado). Para las tarifas
O-M y H-MC los sistemas fotovoltaicos sólo resultan económicos con radiaciones solares
entre 5 y 6 kWh/m2/d.
 Tamaño de los nichos de mercado: Las aplicaciones de sistemas fotovoltaicos, serían
relevantes para alrededor del 98% de todos los usuarios dentro de las “Tarifas
generales”, equivalente a 2.7 millones de empresas aproximadamente (véase Tabla 6).
 Conclusión: Si los precios de mercado para los sistemas fotovoltaicos se reducen, como
se prevé en este escenario, las aplicaciones fotovoltaicas atraerían, posiblemente,
grandes inversiones por parte del sector industrial y de servicios.
La siguiente tabla muestra una vista general del tamaño de los nichos de mercado para los tres
escenarios.
xv
Resumen Ejecutivo
Tabla 6: Tamaño de los nichos en los sectores industrial y de servicios (perspectiva micro)

Empresas potenciales
0 2,557,478 2,716,943
[#]
Porcentaje del total de
0 93 98
empresas [%]
Conclusiones y perspectivas
El estudio muestra que, a pesar de las excelentes condiciones para el uso de sistemas
fotovoltaicos en México, a los precios actuales casi no existen oportunidades económicamente
viables para el uso de éstos, ni en el sector residencial ni en los sectores industrial y de
servicios. Los subsidios, actualmente otorgados a los hogares, son una barrera para el
desarrollo del mercado fotovoltaico en México; sobre todo, si tomamos en cuenta que aquellas
regiones con las mejores condiciones para el uso de sistemas fotovoltaicos – las regiones con
la mayor radiación solar en el país – también reciben, gracias a políticas sociales los mayores
subsidios. Esto, hace aún más difícil que los sistemas fotovoltaicos, sean competitivos
comparados con los precios de la electricidad, dado que estos se mantienen artificialmente
bajos. Cualquier recorte a estos subsidios, aumentaría directamente los nichos de mercado
para los sistemas fotovoltaicos en México. Sin embargo, aún con los subsidios, parece muy
probable que los sistemas fotovoltaicos, se convertirán en una alternativa económicamente
viable para los hogares de la clase media y alta y de la mayoría de las empresas en México, en
un futuro cercano.
A pesar, de que es bueno saber que los sistemas fotovoltaicos podrán competir con las tarifas
eléctricas en un futuro cercano, sin importar los altos niveles de subsidio, una opción mucho
más atractiva sería, definitivamente, combinar un crecimiento en el mercado fotovoltaico con un
decremento en el nivel de subsidios – no sólo para el gobierno, sino para el pueblo mexicano en
general. La experiencia internacional con energías renovables, muestra que los esquemas de
fomento juegan un papel predominante para dar forma a estos mercados por varias razones,
como son los altos costos inciales de inversión, falta de conciencia entre los potenciales
inversionistas, etc. A diferencia de muchos otros mercados, podría ser más viable establecer
esquemas de fomento en México, pues se podría definir un mecanismo de fomento basado en
la lógica de reacomodar recursos financieros que actualmente ya están destinados al gasto
público. Esta reasignación, se llevaría a cabo mediante una redirección de recursos financieros
destinados a subsidiar las tarifas eléctricas para una utilización, al menos parcial, de estos
recursos para estimular el mercado fotovoltaico. Un paso lógico en esta dirección, sería realizar
un análisis detallado de los posibles esquemas de fomento que permitirían la creación de una
situación ganar-ganar. Mientras tanto y para facilitar la toma de decisión de inversión, la hoja de
cálculo desarrollada para el estudio, también es una herramienta que permite a las personas
interesadas descubrir, en algunos minutos, y tomando en cuenta su situación particular, si sería
conveniente, económicamente hablando, realizar una inversión en un sistema fotovoltaico
conectado a la red eléctrica. Para mayor información la “Calculadora fotovoltaica” está
disponible en: www.conuee.gob.mx.
xvi
Presentación de Resultados Clave
- Presentación de Resultados Clave -
xvii
Nichos de mercado para

sistemas fotovoltaicos en conexión a
la red eléctrica en México
La Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía (Conuee)

agradece a la Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
(GTZ) GmbH (Cooperación Técnica Alemana) por el desarrollo del
estudio presente. La colaboración de la GTZ se realiza por encargo del
Ministerio Federal Alemán de Cooperación Económica y Desarollo
(BMZ) y en el marco de la cooperación técnica entre México y
Alemania.
El documento no necesariamente representa la opinión de la Conuee
y/o de la GTZ. Se autoriza la reproducción parcial o total, siempre y
cuando sea sin fines de lucro y se cite la fuente de referencia.
2 Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía
xviii
1 Antecedentes
Antecedentes
2. Sector doméstico
3. Sectores industrial y servicios
4. Conclusiones
Antecedentes
Socios – Conuee
La Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía (CONUEE)

es un órgano administrativo desconcentrado de la Secretaría de
Energía, que cuenta con autonomía técnica y operativa. Tiene por
objeto promover la eficiencia energética y constituirse como órgano
de carácter técnico, en materia de aprovechamiento sustentable de la
energía. La CONUEE queda constituida a partir de la entrada en
vigor de la Ley para el Aprovechamiento Sustentable de la Energía,
publicada el 28 de noviembre de 2008, en donde se establece que
todos los recursos humanos y materiales de la Comisión Nacional
para el Ahorro de Energía (CONAE) se entenderán asignados a esta
nueva Comisión.
xix
Antecedentes
Socios – GTZ (Cooperación Técnica Alemana)
 Empresa estatal del gobierno alemán para la implementación de la
Cooperación Técnica; principal comitente es el Ministerio Federal
Alemán de Cooperación Económica y Desarrollo (BMZ)
 Objetivo: contribuir al desarrollo político, económico, ecológico y
social, para mejorar así las condiciones
de vida y las perspectivas de la población
Cooperación con México en el sector energía

 desde 2005
 contrapartes principales: SENER, Conae, CRE, CFE
 áreas: marco regulatorio y normativo, programas de
promoción, capacitación y desarrollo organizacional
 tecnologías: calentadores solares de agua, bio-
combustibles, sistemas fotovoltaicos, energía eólica
xx
Antecedentes
Objetivos del estudio
 Identificar nichos de mercado, económicamente viables, de

sistemas fotovoltaicos (FV) en conexión a la red eléctrica en México,
para los siguientes sectores (análisis micro):
- sector doméstico
- sector industrial y servicios
 Determinar el mercado potencial para los nichos identificados

- en términos de capacidad (MW p)
- en términos financieros (USD)
 Identificar el impacto de subsidios en los nichos de mercado y en

su tamaño para el sector doméstico (análisis macro)
 Ofrecer herramientas amigables de estimación de rentabilidad para

usuario final, fabricantes, instaladores, público general, etc.
Antecedentes
Aspectos metodológicos
Especificaciones de sistemas analizados

 Módulos polycristalines
 Eficiencia: 16%
 Tiempo de vida: 20 años
 Performance ratio: 0.73%
Metodología
 Comparación económica entre tarifas eléctricas y costos de
generación con sistemas FV en base a valores presentes neto (VPN)
 Análisis micro-económico: nichos desde la perspectiva del usuario
final (tarifa = precio a usuario final, incluyendo subsidios)
 Análisis macro-económico: nichos desde la perspectiva del gobierno
federal (costo total de generación = tarifa + subsidios)
xxi
Antecedentes
Derivación de los nichos
Sistema FV para suministro eléctrico parcial

Costos de
Tarifa [$/kWh] generación [$/kWh]
Precio promedio = (Tarifa * Porcentaje) + (Costos de generación FV * Porcentaje)
Cuando:
Precio promedio < Tarifa original* Nicho
También cuando:
Costos de generación FV > Tarifa original*
* tarifa original = tarifa antes del cambio de tarifa por suministro parcial con FV
1. Antecedentes
2 10
3.
4.
Sector doméstico
Sector doméstico
Sectores industrial y servicios

Conclusiones
Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía
xxii
Sector doméstico
Supuestos clave y escenarios
Supuestos clave
 Tasa de descuento 8%
 IVA 15%
 O&M (anual) 0.8%
 Aumento anual de tarifas eléctricas 8%
 Factor de pérdida de eficiencia para temperaturas > 25ºC
Escenarios analizados*
 Análisis de 29 ciudades seleccionadas para las 7 tarifas eléctricas y
la tarifa DAC (servicio doméstico de alto consumo)
"Precios "Perspectiva "Perspectiva
actuales" conservadora" optimista"
Costos de inversión
103,000 82,400 51,500
(IVA incluido) [$/kWp]
* precios en $ Pesos M.N.
Sector doméstico
Resultados clave (análisis micro)
VPN de costos de generación del sistema FV [$/kWh]

7.00
Costos de generación con
6.00 Monterrey
sistema FV [$/kWh]
Hermosillo
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50
Radiación [kWh/m 2d]
 costos de generación de sistemas fotovoltaicos relativamente bajos

 tarifas más bajas en regiones con mejor radiación
La estructura de las tarifas contrasta la utilización de los
11 sistemas fotovoltaicos
xxiii
Sector doméstico
Nichos actuales (Escenario 1 “Precios actuales de sistemas FV”)

 VPN de costos de generación de sistemas FV > VPN de tarifas
 Posible ahorro para consumidores DAC en regiones con alta
radiación por cambio de tarifa (por una reducción de la demanda de
la red para consumidores DAC, por autogeneración con FV)
 Ventana de oportunidad relativamente pequeña
Nichos futuros (Escenarios 2 y 3 “Perspectivas futuras”)

 Por radiaciones altas VPN de costos de generación de sistemas FV <
VPN de tarifas
 Posible ahorro por cambio de tarifa o “rentabilidad verdadera”
 Nichos:
Escenario 2 Escenario 3
Tarifa 1 – 1E Todas las tarifas
 Ventana de oportunidad bastante significativa
Sector doméstico
Nichos atractivos a mediano plazo
Capacidad Tamaño del Tamaño del
Hogares
Escenario "Top 5" potencial nicho sistema FV
[#]
[MW] [mill. USD] [kW]
1 Guadalajara 174 388.224 1.302 0.1 - 1.3
2 Cuautla 52 73.297 392 0.6 - 1.9
Escenario 2 3 Chihuahua 50 60.298 376 0.1 - 2.9
"Perspectiva 4 Nogales 44 47.799 332 0.6 - 1.9
conservadora" 5 Puebla 41 89.854 306 0.1 - 1.3
Total "Top 5" 362 659.471 2.708
Total 28 ciudades 693 956.629 5.190
17%
1 Guadalajara 174 388.224 814 0.1 - 1.3
2 Mexicali 141 44.606 659 0.2 - 15.5
Escenario 3 3 Monterrey 124 110.034 581 0.1 - 3.7
"Perspectiva 4 Juarez 88 86.143 413 0.1 - 3.7
optimista" 5 Tampico 66 55.366 307 0.1 - 3.7
Total "Top 5" 593 684.372 2.774
Total 28 ciudades 1.336 1.486.362 6.255
27%
* sin Distrito Federal
xxiv
Sector doméstico
Resultados clave (análisis macro)
Impacto de los subsidios en los nichos de mercado

Perspectiva Macro "Sin cambio de tarifa"
Perspectiva micro:
Capacidad Tamaño del
 Tarifas vigentes Escenario
Hogares
potencial Nicho
[MW] [#] [mill. USD]
Perspectivas macro: Escenario 1 sin nichos
 “Sin cambio de tarifas”
Escenario 2 516 224.462 3.867
Se asume que no existe
el efecto de subsidio Escenario 3 1.812 824.533 8.482
resultante de un cambio
a una tarifa más barata. Perspectiva macro "Sin subsidios"
Escenario 1 sin nichos
 “Sin subsidios”
Se asume un sistema Escenario 2 4.580 5.607.111 34.308
tarifario completamente
Escenario 3 7.328 5.607.111 34.308
sin subsidios.
1. Antecedentes
3
16
Sectorindustrial
Sectores
4. Conclusiones
industrial y
y servicios
servicios
xxv

Supuestos clave y escenarios
Supuestos clave
 Tasa de desuento 8%
 IVA 15%
 O&M (anual) 0.5%
 Aumento anual de tarifas eléctricas 7%
Escenarios analizados*
 Fracción/ contribución solar de 5% del consumo anual de electricidad
Escenario 1 Ecenario 2 Scenario 3

"Precios "Perspectiva "Perspectiva
actuales" conservadora" optimista"
1- 50 kWp 101,000 80,800 50,500
Costos de
inversión 50-100 kWp 96,500 77,200 48,250
(IVA incluido) 100-300 kWp 92,200 73,760 46,100
[$/kW p]
300-500 kWp 90,200 72,160 45,100
* precios en $ Pesos M.N.

Resultados clave
Nichos actuales (Escenario 1 “Precios actuales de sistemas FV”)
 VPN de costos de generación de sistemas FV > VPN de tarifas
 Actualmente no existen nichos para uso economicamente viable
Nichos futuros (Escenarios 2 y 3 “Precios futuros de sistemas FV”)

 Por radiaciones solares altas:
VPN de costos de generación de sistemas FV < VPN de tarifas
 Posible ahorro por “rentabilidad verdadera”
 Nichos: Escenario 2 Escenario 3
Tarifa 2 y 3 Todas las tarifas
Escenario 2 Escenario 3
Empresas potenciales
 Nichos muy atractivos [#]
2.557.478 2.716.943
a mediano plazo Porcentage del total de
93 98
empresas [%]
xxvi
1. Antecedentes
3. Sectores industrial y servicios
4
19
Conclusiones
Conclusiones
Conclusión
Perspectivas prometedoras
Actualmente
Pocas posibilidades de la utilización económica de sistemas FV en
conexión a la red eléctrica en México por
 Estructura de las tarifas y subsidios
 Costos elevados de sistemas FV
 Falta de mecanismos de fomento para hogares
 Opción: desviación de subsidios (situación win-win)
Perspectiva
En 3 a 5 años, aproximadamente, es probable que
los sistemas FV se vuelvan rentables en varias
regiones del país, por la disminución de precios de
estos sistemas, dando como resultado nichos y
volúmenes de mercado más atractivos.
xxvii
Conclusiones
Herramientas útiles de promoción
Una forma fácil e

interactiva de identificar
para su caso particular si
la compra de un sistema
FV sería rentable!
Baje el estudio completo y

encuentre su propio nicho!

www.conuee.gob.mx
Cooperación Técnica Alemana

www.gtz.de/mexico
¡Gracias por
su atención!
xxviii
Market Niches for Grid-connected Photovoltaic Systems in Mexico
Estudio Completo
- Estudio Completo -
xxix
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Resumen ejecutivo v
Executive Summary 1
1 Introduction 13
1.1 Background and Motivation 13
1.2 Objective and scope 14
1.3 Methodology and data collection 15
1.4 Structure 15
2 The Mexican market for photovoltaic systems 17
2.1 Technical potential in Mexico 17
2.2 Market overview 17
2.3 Regulatory framework 19
3 Mexican electricity tariffs 21
3.1 Determining factors for electricity consumption in Mexico 21
3.1.1 Residential sector 21
3.1.2 Industry and services sectors 22
3.2 Overview of residential tariffs 24
3.3 Overview of tariffs for industry and services sectors 29
4 Photovoltaic systems subject to analysis 33
4.1 Photovoltaic Systems for the residential sector 34
4.1.1 Performance ratio and efficiency loss factor 34
4.1.2 Cities considered 36
4.1.3 Socio-economic parameters 36
4.1.4 Sizing of photovoltaic systems for full electricity supply 38
4.1.5 Sizing of photovoltaic systems for partial electricity supply 39
4.2 Photovoltaic systems for industry and services sectors 41
4.2.1 Performance ratio 41
4.2.2 Regions considered 41
4.2.3 Socio-economic parameters 42
4.2.4 Sizing 43
xxx
Table of Contents
5 Cost calculation 45
5.1 Tariff costs 45
5.2 Financial parameters and assumptions 46
5.3 Scenarios 47
5.4 Photovoltaic system costs 48
5.4.1 Residential sector - Photovoltaic systems for full electricity supply 49
5.4.2 Residential sector - Photovoltaic systems for partial electricity supply 51
5.4.3 Industry and services sector 52
6 Identification and description of market niches via cost comparison 55
6.1 Residential Sector 56
6.1.1 Scenario 1: Current niches 56
6.1.2 Scenario 2: Conservative outlook 66
6.1.3 Scenario 3: Optimistic outlook 73
6.1.4 Analysis of the scenarios from a macro-perspective 79
6.1.4.1 Determination of market niches from a macro-perspective 81
6.1.4.2 Market niches from a macro perspective 87
6.1.5 Conclusions 90
6.2 Industry and services sectors 90
6.2.1 Scenario 1: Current niches 90
6.2.2 Scenario 2: Conservative outlook 90
6.2.3 Scenario 3: Optimistic outlook 92
6.2.4 Conclusions 97
7 Methodological reflections and conclusions 99
7.1 Sensitivity analysis 99
7.1.1 Influence of a variation of the solar radiation 99
7.1.2 Influence of a variation of the discount rate 100
7.1.2.1 Residential sector 100
7.1.2.2 Industry and services sectors 100
7.2 Limitations of the study 101
7.3 Closing remarks and outlook 102
Annex 105
Bibliography 187
xxxi
List of Tables
List of Tables
Tabla 1: Parámetros clave y suposiciones viii

Tabla 2: Estructura básica de tarifas para el sector residencial y el sector industrial y
servicios ix
Tabla 3: Nichos de mercado por ciudad xi
Tabla 4: Tamaño de los nichos en el sector residencial (perspectiva micro) xiii
Tabla 5: Tamaño total de los nichos de mercado de la perspectiva macro xiv
Tabla 6: Tamaño de los nichos en los sectores industrial y de servicios (perspectiva micro) xvi
Table 7: Key parameters and assumptions 3
Table 8: Basic structure of tariffs for residential as well as industry and services 4
Table 9: Market niches by city in the residential sector (micro-approach) 6
Table 10: Size of niches in the residential sector (micro-approach) 8
Table 11: Total size of market niches from a macro-perspective 9
Table 12: Size of niches in the industry and services sectors (micro-approach) 11
Table 13: Overview of residential tariff groups (2007) 24
Table 14 : Invoice amounts for a consumption of 140 kWh (June 2007) 26
Table 15: DAC limits and tariffs in exemplary cities and regions (residential sector) 28
Table 16: Average monthly consumption data of equipments of a four-person household 29
Table 17: Tariffs for industry and services sector 29
Table 18: Allocation of intervals for Tariff H-M (2007) 30
Table 19: FRI and FRB values for Tariff H-M 31
Table 20: High temperature efficiency loss values 35
Table 21: Resulting performance ratios 35
Table 22: Assumed consumption levels of model households 37
Table 23: Additional consumption volumes for the analysis of systems for partial supply 39
Table 24: Tariffs and studied regions 41
Table 25: Considered capacity demand and consumption levels 42
Table 26: Division of overall kWh consumption 43
Table 27: Example: tariff net present value costs 46
Table 28: Financial parameters for the residential sector 46
Table 29: Financial parameters for the industry and services sectors 47
Table 30: Scenario prices for the residential sector 47
Table 31: Scenario prices for the industry and services sectors 48
xxxii
List of Tables
Table 32: PV Generation cost calculation for residential sector (Full Supply) 49
Table 33: Cost calculation for industry and services sectors 53
Table 34: Applied FRI values 54
Table 35: Scenario 1 - Cost comparison residential sector 57
Table 36: Market niches by city in the residential sector (micro-approach) 64
Table 40: Core assumptions of micro- and macro-approaches 80
Table 41: Core differences between macro and micro-approaches in the determination of
market niche sizes 82
Table 42: Example of data obtained from CFE 83
Table 43: Example Step 1 a): Calculation of average tariffs for consumption ranges in
Scenario 1 in summer season 84
Table 44: Example Step 1 b): Calculation of average tariffs for consumption
volumes/Scenario 1 84
Table 45: Example Step 3 a) Calculation of average consumption volume for users in a
niche in a certain consumption group 86
Table 46: Example Step 3 a) Calculation of average consumption volume for users in a
Table 47: Example Step 3 c) Calculation of total capacity resulting financially feasible for
consumption group 87
Table 48: Summary of results for the macro-approach “No tariff change” 88
Table 49: Summary of results for the macro-approach “No subsidies” 89
Table 50: Scenario 2 - Cost-saving PV applications in industry and services sectors 91
Table 51: Scenario 3 - Cost comparison industry and services sectors 93
Table 53: Size of niches in the industry and services sectors (micro-approach) 103
xxxiii
List of Figures
List of Figures
Figura 1: Derivación de los nichos indicados x

Figure 2: Derivation of marked niches 5
Figure 3: Determining factors for residential electricity consumption in Mexico 21
Figure 4: Examples for demand courses in the industry sector 23
Figure 5: Examples for demand courses in the service sector 23
Figure 6: Residential tariff structure 25
Figure 7: Residential tariff substructure (Tariff 1A, January 2007) 26
Figure 8: Components of a grid-connected photovoltaic system 33
Figure 9: Scenario 1 - PV Generation costs residential sector 61
Figure 12: Example Step 3 a) Calculation of average consumption volume for users in a
xxxiv
List of Acronyms
List of Acronyms
a Year
CFE Federal Commission for Electricity
Conuee National Commission for the Efficient Use of Energy
CRE Commission for Energy Regulation
d Day
DAC Residential Electricity Tariff for High Consumption
D.F. Federal District
DF Charged Capacity Demand (demanda facturada)
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GTZ German Technical Cooperation
IEA International Energy Agency
IIE Electrical Research Institute
kWh Kilowatt-hour
LyFC Electricity and Power of the Centre
m2 Square meter
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PV Photovoltaic
PVPS Photovoltaic Power Systems Programm
SENER Federal Ministry for Energy
SMN National Meteorological Service
W Watt
Wp Watt peak
VAT Value Added tax
$ Mexican peso
xxxv
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Background and motivation
Mexico features excellent natural conditions for the application of photovoltaic systems. In many
parts of its vast territory the average solar radiation is about twice as high as, for example, in sun
poor Germany which is currently one of the largest photovoltaic markets in the world. The huge
potential of Mexico, Latin America’s second biggest economy, has hardly been tapped so far. Up
to now the country has only installed about 19.7 MW p of photovoltaic systems, compared to
3,800 MW p in Germany. Due to rising energy prices and the growing public awareness of the
negative impacts of fossil fuels the sun as a potential energy source is more and more arousing
the interest of Mexican authorities. In July 2007 a resolution was passed by the regulatory body
for the Mexican electricity and gas sector (CRE) giving investors the possibility to set up small
scale grid-connected photovoltaic systems (up to 10 kW p for households and up to 30kW p for
companies). This interconnection is regulated on the principle of Net Energy Metering that allows
to offset the cost of the electricity use with the energy fed into the grid. This resolution opens up
opportunities for a wider use of photovoltaic systems in Mexico – beyond the currently prevailing
application as isolated systems. As a consequence more and more people are interested in
information regarding the financial feasibility of the grid-connected use of photovoltaic systems in
Mexico.
Objective and scope

With regard to the quite limited information available at present concerning the financial
feasibility of grid-connected photovoltaic systems in Mexico the core objectives of this study are
to:
 identify market niches for a financially viable use of photovoltaic systems in the Mexican
residential sector as well as in the industry and services sectors by analysing if the use of
photovoltaic systems in these sectors can save costs from an investor’s perspective
compared to purchasing the entire electricity from the national grid,
 specify the size of these market niches in the aforementioned sectors in terms of capacity
(in MW p) and in terms of market volume (in USD),
 identify the impact of subsidies on market niches and their size, since this aspect is of
relevance from a government’s or macro-perspective. This analysis is limited to the
residential sector due to a lack of data for the industry and services sectors.
Concerning the residential sector the study was limited to 29 Mexican cities which were
identified by Conuee. For each city two photovoltaic options were regarded. The first option is a
photovoltaic system designed to supply the total annual electricity consumption of the household
(full supply option). In the second option the system is designed to provide only the share of
electricity needed to make a lower tariff apply (partial supply option).
The industry and services sectors were analysed jointly since the same tariffs apply for them.
For each tariff those three regions featuring the lowest, medium and highest tariff were selected
for the analysis. The systems were designed to supply 5% of the total annual electricity
consumption of a company.
1
Executive Summary
The study in hand was limited to the analysis of PV systems as an alternative to the purchase
from electricity from the grid. Other measures and technologies like energy efficiency measures
(e.g. energy efficient lighting) or other renewable energy technologies were not considered.
Methodological considerations and scenarios

Market niches in this study are defined as opportunities for a financially feasible use of grid-
connected photovoltaic systems in Mexico. Methodologically, market niches were identified by
comparing the generation costs of a photovoltaic system to the costs of purchasing electricity
from the national grid under the current Mexican electricity tariffs. The cost comparison between
monthly invoices and the respective costs for the photovoltaic systems was performed on the
basis of net present values for a 20 years period. In other words, this study defines a market
niche as a situation in which the total costs of electricity consumption over 20 years with a PV
system result inferior to the costs for the same amount of electricity without a PV system. In this
context, the electricity consumption volumes were assumed to be fix over the regarded 20 years
period for all sectors. The parameters used for the calculation of net present values and the cost
comparison together with the key parameters of the photovoltaic system are shown in Table 7.
The specific investment costs of a photovoltaic system were calculated by designing particular
photovoltaic systems for selected significant consumption levels multiplying the respective
determined system capacity (kW p) with market prices which were taken from a market survey.
With respect to current photovoltaic module prices it can be said that market prices in Mexico
are still significantly higher compared to Germany and the United States. Reasons for this
difference might be that the Mexican market is still very small and that most modules are
imported. As the photovoltaic industry and the International Energy Agency both expect
considerable price declines for photovoltaic systems in the next years the study includes a total
of three scenarios regarding the prices per kW p installed.
 Scenario 1 “Current prices” as identified in a market survey in autumn 2007 in Mexico
 Scenario 2 “Conservative outlook” assuming a price reduction of 20% within 5 years
 Scenario 3 “Optimistic outlook” assuming a price reduction of 50% within 5 years
The analysis for Scenarios 2 and 3 was carried out with expected future electricity tariffs in 5
years from now. These tariffs were calculated by applying a rate of annual price increase (see
Table 1). The consumption volumes used for the analysis were identified depending upon the
structure of the respective tariff groups. In the residential sector there are seven different tariffs
(1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F) each applying for a different climatic region (see Table 8) and an
additional one (DAC) applying for households exceeding a certain upper consumption limit. The
respective price per kilowatt-hour of a tariff varies due to season, month and consumption
volume. The residential tariffs are substructured in consumption ranges. The logic of these
ranges is as follows: the higher the consumption of a household the higher the applying tariff.
Concerning the option of a photovoltaic system supplying only a certain part of the household’s
total electricity demand (partial supply) the system was designed to generate the amount of
energy needed to make a lower tariff apply. For systems generating the total electricity demand
(full supply) the limits of the tariffs’ consumption ranges were used as hypothetical consumption
volumes following the premise that if photovoltaic systems turn out to be cost-saving against a
certain tariff that this will happen at the point where the respective tariff switches from a higher to
a lower one. For example, in Tariff 1 the tariff changes at consumption volumes of 140 and 250
kWh. So consumption volumes of 140, 249 and 250 kWh were used for the analysis.
2
Executive Summary
Table 7: Key parameters and assumptions
Residential Sector Industry and Services Sector

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
"Current "Conser- "Opti-mistic "Current "Conser- "Opti-mistic
Prices" vative outlook" Prices" vative outlook"
Outlook" Outlook"
1- 50 kWp 101,000 80,800 50,500

Investment cost scenarios
50-100 kWp 96,500 77,200 48,250
(tax included) 103,000 82,400 51,500
[$/kWp] 100-300 kWp 92,200 73,760 46,100
300-500 kWp 90,200 72,160 45,100
Discount rate 8%
Value added tax 15%
Annual costs for O&M in percentage of
the investment cost for the photovoltaic 0.80% 0.50%
system
Rate of annual price increase of
8% 7%
electricity tarifs
PV moduls
Type Polycrystalline
Efficiency 16%
Lifetime 20 years
Performance ratio 0.73
Efficiency loss due to temperatures
0.5 %/°C No efficiency loss assumed
above 25 °C
Source: Own display
The structure of the tariffs for the industry and services sectors is quite different from the
residential sector. The application of a tariff depends on the type of connection to the national
grid (low voltage, medium voltage, high voltage) which again depends on the peak power
demand of the electricity user. Furthermore, the applying tariff varies over the day due to the
distinction of base, intermediate and peak load intervals. The analysis of these sectors results
thus much more complex due to the relevance of the electrical power demand, the distinction of
different load intervals and the individuality of the consumption characteristics of different
industry and service branches. Because of this complexity the analysis of this part of the study
was performed on a more general basis. For every tariff a low, medium and high electricity
consumption was identified. Afterwards the impact of a photovoltaic system generating 5% of
this consumption was analysed. The following table shows the basic structure of the tariffs
applying for the residential and industry and services sectors in Mexico.
3
Executive Summary
Table 8: Basic structure of tariffs for residential as well as industry and services
Residential sector Industry and services sectors
Minimum average
Applying Applying
temperature during Voltage Maximum demand/Transmission level
tariff tariff
summer
< 25°C 1 < 25 kW 2

Low voltage
≥ 25°C and < 28°C 1A ≥ 25 kW 3
≥ 28°C and < 30°C 1B < 100 kW O-M
30°C 1C Medium voltage ≥ 100 kW H-M
31°C 1D ≥ 100 kW, short-time utilisation H-MC
32°C 1E subtransmission H-S
≥ 33°C 1F subtransmission, long-time utilisation H-SL
High voltage
transmission H-T
transmission, long-time utilisation H-TL
Source: Own display
In addition to the standard approach from the investor’s perspective (micro-approach) and in
order to identify the impact of subsidies on market niches and their size in the residential sector
two macro-approaches with different underlying assumptions were analysed for each scenario:
 Macro-approach “No tariff change”: This approach neglects the possibility of a tariff drop.
Market niches identified in this way do not cover cases in which the photovoltaic system
turns out financially feasible due to a change to a higher subsidised and thus cheaper
tariff.
 Macro-approach “No subsidies”: This approach assumes cost-oriented electricity tariffs
free of subsidies. Therefore this approach replaces all the existing tariffs by the DAC
which is supposed to represent cost covering electricity prices. This approach allows
identifying market niches in a world free of subsidies and gives a much clearer idea on
the real competitiveness of photovoltaic systems in the Mexican electricity sector.
Core results for the residential sector (micro-approach)

Scenario 1 “Current system prices and niches” (103,000 $/kW p)
 Electricity from PV is always more expensive than electricity from the grid without PV:
Applying current system prices the study shows that over the twenty years period the
average cost per kilowatt-hour generated by a household with a photovoltaic system is
always higher than the respective average tariff paid without a photovoltaic system over
the same period.
 Market niches for some DAC consumers: Nevertheless, in some cases the photovoltaic
option supplying a part of the total electricity demand of a household turned out to be
cost-saving against purchasing the whole amount of electricity from the grid. The reason
for this is the change to a lower tariff caused by the reduction of the electricity consumed
from the grid in consequence of generating a part of the electricity with the photovoltaic
system. This effect turns out to save costs over the 20 years period only for households
4
Executive Summary
consuming in the most expensive residential tariff (DAC) in a limited number of cities,
applying a photovoltaic system only up to a certain size and in general only in regions
featuring a radiation of about the national average or higher. If the photovoltaic system’s
share of the total electricity supply surpasses a critical point, the increase in PV
investment costs offsets the impact of the tariff drop, so that the “niche disappears”.
Figure 2: Derivation of marked niches
PV system for partial supply:

Generation
Tariff [$/kWh] cost [$/kWh]
Average price = (Tariff * Porcentage) + (PV generation costs * Porcentage)
Always if:
Average price < Original tariff* marked niche
Even if:
PV generation costs > Original tariff*
* original tariff = tariff before tarff switch

caused by partial supply by PV system
Source: Own display
 Size of market niches: The described niches apply only to about 2% of the Mexican
households from the 28 cities, equivalent to almost 90,000 households. The Federal
District, Mexico City, is not considered here due to a lack of data regarding the number of
households and their respective consumption volumes. The size of the niches amount to
81 MW equivalent to approximately USD 608 million at Scenario 1 prices (see Table 10).
The niche is limited to the following cities marked with a cross in Table 9.
 Conclusion: With current system prices the possibilities for a cost-saving application of
grid-connected photovoltaic systems in the Mexican household sector are quite limited.
5
Executive Summary
Table 9: Market niches by city in the residential sector (micro-approach)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
DAC below DAC DAC below DAC DAC below DAC
Durango X X X X X
Oaxaca X X X X X
Tariff 1 Guadalajara X X X X X
Puebla X X X X X
Distrito Federal X X X X X
Cuautla X X X X
Tepic X X X X X
Tariff 1A
Nogales X X X X X
Chihuahua X X X X X
Acapulco X X X X X
Tariff 1B
Poza Rica X X X X X
Cd. Juárez X X X
Monterrey X X X
Tariff 1C
Tampico X X X
Mérida X X X X
Mazatlán X X X
La Paz X X X X X
Tariff 1D
Matamoros X X X X X
Culiacán X X X
Guaymas X X X X X
Tariff 1E
Reynosa X X X
Mexicali X X
Tariff 1F
Cd. Obregón X X
Hermosillo X X
Source: Own display
Scenario 2 “Conservative outlook” (82,400 $/kW p)

 PV generation costs for high consumption volumes are lower than the tariff without PV:
The second scenario shows that nearly for all households paying the DAC both
photovoltaic options are cost-saving, partial and full electricity supply. This means that
systems also save costs supplying the total electricity demand of a household. It shows
further that - in these cases - the average generation costs with a photovoltaic system per
kilowatt-hour over the twenty years period of the systems are lower than the average
DAC that would have to be paid over the same period without a PV system.
 Market niches are not limited to DAC consumers: In the consumption range of the DAC
photovoltaic systems are cost-saving in all tariffs but 1F. Furthermore, in all tariffs but 1C
and 1F it is possible to save costs in the consumption range next below the DAC in cities
with radiations above 5 kWh/m2/d due to the effect of a drop from the highest tariff to a
lower one, as has been explained above. The consumption range right below DAC is not
cost-saving in Tariff 1C since no city features a radiation considerably above 5 kWh/m2/d
and in the case of Tariff 1F since no DAC applies during summer.
6
Executive Summary
 Size of market niches: The described niches apply to about 17% of the Mexican
households of the 28 cities, equivalent to almost a million households. The size of the
niche amounts to 693 MW equivalent to approximately USD 5,190 million at Scenario 2
prices (see Table 10). In every single city of the cities that were analysed exists some
kind of niche (see Table 9).
 Conclusion: This scenario shows that it is quite likely that consumers close to the DAC
limits (below or above) will enjoy in approximately five years generation costs per
kilowatt-hour with a photovoltaic system that are lower than the price per kWh without PV
system. This results in significant market and cost-saving opportunities for grid-connected
PV use in Mexico for a range of different consumption levels.
Scenario 3 “Optimistic outlook” (51,500 $/kW p)

 PV generation cost-saving in most cases: This scenario shows a strong potential for cost
savings by the use of photovoltaic systems for all residential tariffs. Cost-saving
applications in the consumption ranges next below the DAC are possible in all regions.
 Strong market niches for middle range and large consumers: For all cities considered in
the study the possibility exists to save costs in the consumption range next below the
DAC by full or partial supply photovoltaic option. In all tariffs but 1F the generation costs
with a photovoltaic system are even lower than the average tariff that would have to be
paid in the consumption range next below the DAC without a PV system. Only in the
lowest consumption range of the tariffs the generation costs of a photovoltaic system are
still higher than the tariff.
 Size of market niches: The described niches apply to about 27% of the Mexican
households of the 28 cities, equivalent to almost 1.5 million households. The size of the
niche amounts to 1336 MW equivalent to approximately USD 6,225 million at Scenario 3
prices (see Table 10). In every single city out the cities that were analysed exists some
kind of niche (see Table 9).
 Conclusion: This scenario shows clearly that by halving the prices photovoltaic systems
would become cost-saving in Mexico for all consumption volumes exceeding the basic
consumption range. As a result, the photovoltaic market would become promising to
attract strong private investment.
7
Executive Summary
Table 10 gives an overview about the niches’ sizes for all three scenarios.
Table 10: Size of niches in the residential sector (micro-approach)
Potential Range of
Households Size of niche
capacity PV size
Scenario "Top 5"
[MW] [n] [mill. USD] [kW]
2 Chihuahua 9 14,941 67
Scenario 1 3 Puebla 7 10,993 49
"Current 4 Poza Rica 6 9,994 45
niches" 5 Acapulco 5 7,713 35
Total "Top 5" 54 89,622 403
Total 28 Cities 81 133,499 608
2%
1 Guadalajara 174 388,224 1,302 0.1 - 1.3
2 Cuautla 52 73,297 392 0.6 - 1.9
Scenario 2 3 Chihuahua 50 60,298 376 0.1 - 2.9
"Conservative 4 Nogales 44 47,799 332 0.6 - 1.9
Outlook" 5 Puebla 41 89,854 306 0.1 - 1.3
Total "Top 5" 362 659,471 2,708
Total 28 Cities 693 956,629 5,190
17%
1 Guadalajara 174 388,224 814 0.1 - 1.3
2 Mexicali 141 44,606 659 0.2 - 15.5
Scenario 3 3 Monterrey 124 110,034 581 0.1 - 3.7
"Optimistic 4 Cd. Juarez 88 86,143 413 0.1 - 3.7
outlook" 5 Tampico 66 55,366 307 0.1 - 3.7
Total "Top 5" 593 684,372 2,774
Total 28 Cities 1,336 1,486,362 6,255
27%
Source: Own display
8
Executive Summary
Core results for the residential sector (macro-approach)

Macro-approach “No tariff change”
 No niches for Scenario 1.
 Significant market niches for Scenario 2 and 3 in spite of unfavorable assumption.
Macro-approach “No subsidies”
 No niches for Scenario 1.
 Huge market niches for Scenario 2 and 3. Compared to the niches found by the micro-
approach of the residential sector, the size of the niche in megawatt-hours of the macro-
approach “No subsidies” is five and a half times bigger in Scenario 2 and four and a half
times in Scenario 3.
Conclusion
 Subsidies cause significant market distortion to the disadvantage for the application of
photovoltaic systems.
 The application of photovoltaic systems offers huge potential for the Mexican government
to cutback subsidies on the one hand while on the other hand providing clean and cheap
energy to a large part of its citizens.
Table 11 illustrates the total sizes of the market niches of the scenarios for the macro-
approaches “No tariff change” and “No subsidies”.
Table 11: Total size of market niches from a macro-perspective
Macro-approach "No tariff change"

Potential Households Size of
Scenario capacity niche
[MW p] [n] [mill. USD]
1
no niches
"Current niches"
2
516 224,462 3,867
"Conservative outlook"
3
1,812 824,533 8,482
"Optimistic outlook"
Macro-approach "No subsidies"

1
no niches
"Current niches"
2
4,580 5,607,111 34,308
"Conservative outlook"
3
7,328 5,607,111 34,308
"Optimistic outlook"
Source: Own display
9
Executive Summary
Core results for the industry and services sectors

The following results refer to market niches for companies purchasing their electricity in one of
the “general tariffs” (Tariff 2, 3, O-M, H-M, H-MC, H-S, H-SL, H-T, H-TL). As mentioned above
the analysis compared a situation without a PV system with an investment in a PV system that
would serve 5% of a company’s electricity demand.
Scenario 1 “Current system prices”
 Electricity from PV is always more expensive than electricity from the grid without PV: For
the industry and services sectors the analysis found no single case in which a
photovoltaic system is cost-saving at Scenario 1 prices, i.e. currently there is no niche for
a cost-saving generation of 5% of a company’s electricity consumption.
Scenario 2 “Conservative outlook”

 Niches for PV applications in Tariff 2 and 3: Scenario 2 showed first niches for cost-
saving applications of photovoltaic systems in the Mexican industry and services sectors.
Niches for the generation of 5% of a company’s electricity exist in all regions of Tariff 2
and furthermore for regions featuring high radiations of about 6 kWh/m2/d in Tariff 3.
 Size of market niches: Although on the first look it may appear that the niche is quite
small it has to be pointed out that Tariff 2 includes about 93% of all users that fall in the
“general tariffs”. In total, this niche applies to approximately 2.5 million enterprises (see
Table 12). A quantification of the niches in MW and market volume in financial terms was
methodologically unfeasible due to limited data.
 Conclusion: As the price reductions assumed in this scenario are quite conservative it
can be expected that for most Mexican companies photovoltaic systems may become
interesting in coming years.
Scenario 3 “Optimistic outlook”

 Niches for PV applications in Tariff 2, 3, O-M and H-MC: Scenario 3 shows niches in
Tariff 2 and 3 for an average radiation of 4, 5 to 6 kWh/m2/d (which nearly covers all of
the populated Mexican territory). For the tariffs O-M and H-MC photovoltaic systems
would be cost-saving for radiations of about 5 to 6 kWh/m2/d.
 Size of market niches: Photovoltaic applications could be relevant to an estimated 98% of
all users in the “general tariffs”, equivalent to approximately 2.7 million enterprises (see
Table 12).
 Conclusion: If market prices for PV systems decline as foreseen in this Scenario, PV
applications are very likely to attract strong investment from companies.
The following table gives an overview about the niches’ sizes for all three scenarios.
10
Executive Summary
Table 12: Size of niches in the industry and services sectors (micro-approach)

Potential enterprises
0 2,557,478 2,716,943
[#]
Percentage of overall
0 93 98
enterprises [%]
Source: Own display
Conclusions and outlook

The study shows that despite of excellent conditions for photovoltaic systems in Mexico there
are hardly any opportunities at current PV prices for cost-saving applications in the residential as
well as in the industry and services sectors. The subsidies currently granted to households pose
a barrier to PV market development in Mexico; above all if we take into account that those
regions with the best conditions for the use of photovoltaic systems, i.e. the regions with the
highest solar radiation in country, do - for social policy reasons - receive as well the highest
subsidies. This makes it even more difficult for PV systems to be competitive against electricity
prices since these are kept artificially low. Any cutbacks of these subsidies would directly
increase market niches for photovoltaic systems in Mexico. Nevertheless and even with
subsidies in place, it seems very likely that photovoltaic systems will become cost-saving for
middle and upper class households and most companies throughout Mexico in the near future.
While it is good news that photovoltaic systems will be able to compete with electricity tariffs in
the near future despite of partly quite significant subsidy levels, it would obviously – and not only
for the government but as well for the Mexican people as a whole – be a much more attractive
option to combine a growing photovoltaic market with decreasing subsidy levels. International
experience with renewable energies shows that promotion schemes play a predominant role in
order to shape these markets for various reasons such as high upfront investment costs, lacking
awareness among potential investors, etc. In contrast to many other markets, it might be easier
to establish a promotion scheme in Mexico, since Mexico could define a promotion mechanism
based on the logic of reallocating financial resources that are currently already foreseen for
public spending. The reallocation would take place in the form of redirecting financial resources
from spending them to subsidize electricity tariffs to using at least a part of these resources to
stimulate the photovoltaic market. A logical next step in this direction would thus be to carry out
a detailed analysis of possible promotion schemes that would allow to create such a win-win-
situation. In the meanwhile and in order to facilitate investment decision making the Excel-model
developed for the study does also offer a tool which enables interested people to figure out in a
couple of minutes for their specific case whether an investment in a grid-connected photovoltaic
system would make good financial sense. The “Photovoltaic Calculator” is available at:
www.conuee.gob.mx and www.gtz.de/mexico.
11
Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 Background and Motivation
The last years showed an unprecedented growth of the world’s energy consumption. Only during
the year 2004 the world energy consumption rose by 4.3%.1 Old and new emerging economies
compete more and more aggressively for fossil resources to feed their ever growing hunger for
energy. Direct effects of this policy are drastically growing prices for fossil fuels, political conflicts
to the point of political destabilisation of regions and armed conflicts. On the other hand the
drastic impact on our environment of the accelerated exploitation and consumption of fossil fuels
becomes more and more evident. The contamination of soil, groundwater and air destroys plant
and animal live worldwide and causes diseases among the human population making life
impossible in some of the most affected areas. On the global level, scientists discover more and
more phenomena which either seem to be directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels, for
example global dimming, or to which at least an impact of mankind appears to be very probable,
for example climate change.
The answer a society gives to the question how it wants and can provide the energy it consumes
is thus not only crucial to its economical development but also to the standard of living it wants to
achieve for its people. Today renewable energy sources are more and more able to
economically cover a bigger part of a nation’s energy consumption. As a result some countries
have already achieved significant progress in the employment of renewable energies in recent
years. As one of the major economies in Latin America with a large territorial extension and
favourable climatic conditions, Mexico has an enormous potential for the use of renewable
energies. Regarding solar energy, for instance, Mexico has excellent conditions with an average
solar radiation amounting to around 5.0 kWh/m2/d compared to e.g. a significantly lower average
of 3.2 kWh/m2/d in Germany.2 This underlines Mexico’s advantageous conditions regarding the
use of solar energy, which is addressed by this study. However, Mexico’s huge potential has
hardly been tapped so far. Currently Mexico has only installed about 19.7 MW p of photovoltaic
systems. In contrast, Germany, a country with a much lower solar radiation and less population
has installed about 2,500 MW p.3
The study in hand focuses – from an financial perspective – on the use of photovoltaic systems
in the residential, industry and services sectors in Mexico and presents a comparative cost
analysis.
1
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltenergieverbrauch
2
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaik
3
Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme – Annual Report 2006. International Energy Agency (IEA) – Photovoltaic
Power Systems Programme. Page 78.
13
Introduction
The study was realised by GTZ (German technical cooperation) on request from the Mexican
National Commission for Energy Conservation (Conuee – Comisión Nacional para el Uso
Eficiente de la Energia) in the frame of Mexican-German technical cooperation and was
motivated by a couple of factors. The two core factors in this context were: On the one hand,
there is, as outlined above, a huge gap between current use and actual potential for the use of
photovoltaic systems in Mexico. On the other hand, there is no clarity under which criteria and to
what extent photovoltaic systems can be a financially advantageous option for households and
companies.
1.2 Objective and scope

The core objective of this study is to provide up-to-date information on the financial feasibility of
grid-connected photovoltaic systems in the Mexican residential, industry and services sector.
With regard to the quite limited information available at present concerning this issue the study in
hand gives a first overview about the impact of photovoltaic systems in the residential, industry
and services sectors by analysing if the application of photovoltaic systems in these sectors can
save costs compared to purchasing the electricity from the national grid. Cases featuring such a
cost-saving effect will be referred to as niches for photovoltaic application. This information
should provide potential private investors as well as the respective governmental officials with a
basis regarding investment decisions on photovoltaic systems. The study gives no further
information about the profitability, the amortisation or else financial aspect of photovoltaic
systems identified as being cost-saving.
The cost analysis on which the study is based describes the particular situation of a potential
investor. It was performed in two parts, one concerning the residential sector and its respective
tariffs and a second one regarding the industry and services sectors. For the analysis of the
residential sector 29 Mexican cities were chosen in order to consider different climates and solar
radiations. Due to a quite irregular structure of the tariffs applying for the industry and services
sectors the analysis of these sectors was performed on a more general basis choosing most
often three significant regions of Mexico. Furthermore a macro-perspective is applied
additionally for the residential sector in order to identify the impact of subsidies on market niches
and their size from a governmental point of view.
For the analysis of the three sectors the study mainly focuses on the tariff system of the Federal
Commission for Electricity (CFE – Comisión Federal de Electricidad), which is by far the bigger
of the two Mexican electricity operators (CFE: 70% of generation capacity, 96% of transmission
net, ca. 24 million clients). Only for the purpose of including the Federal District (D.F. – Distrito
Federal) into the analysis the tariffs of second operator, Electricity and Power of the Centre
(LyFC – Luz y Fuerza del Centro) were consulted (LyFC: 1.6% of generation capacity, ca. 5
million clients). Nevertheless these tariffs are not explained in the present study as the tariffs of
LyFC applying for the D.F. match those of Tariff 1 of CFE.
14
Introduction
1.3 Methodology and data collection

Technical information as well as quantitative and qualitative assumptions were partly provided
by and fully agreed upon with Conuee in several meetings. The calculations were realised with
traditional financial mathematical methods of investment appraisal using purely dynamical
methods and are based on data either already available or assumed values.
The study is based on a cost comparison of net present values for a 20 years period of the total
costs a household or company faces if the electricity is purchased from the national grid or is
supplied by a photovoltaic system. The “grid electricity costs” are calculated considering an
annual price increase of the electricity tariffs. For the calculation of the net present values of the
total costs of the respective photovoltaic system the necessary size of the system is determined.
This is done in the first step by analysing the Mexican tariffs of the respective sectors. Based on
this analysis significant consumption volumes are identified for households as well as
companies. In the second step photovoltaic systems are sized for these consumption volumes.
Here two different photovoltaic options are considered for the residential sector and one for the
industry and services sectors. On the basis of determined system size, photovoltaic investment
costs per kW p and the percentage of the annual operation and maintenance costs at the total
investment costs the total costs as net present value for a 20 years period of each photovoltaic
system is calculated. The electricity consumption is assumed to be fix over the 20 years period.
Based on the results of the cost comparison conclusions of the current and future situation of the
Mexican photovoltaic market are derived.
1.4 Structure
The introduction to the study in this section (Chapter 1) is followed by a general overview about
photovoltaic in Mexico and provides some basic market data (Chapter 2). Chapter 3 is dedicated
to the analysis of existing electricity tariffs for the three sectors (residential, industry and
services). Chapter 4 focuses on the definition and the seizing of the photovoltaic systems as well
as explaining the assumptions underlying their calculation. The next section (Chapter 5) explains
on which basis the overall costs for electricity purchased from the grid and for the photovoltaic
systems are compared and how they are calculated. Furthermore the chapter gives an overview
of the assumed financial parameters. This chapter is followed by the actual financial comparison
presenting the results for three different scenarios of the different sectors including the results of
the macro-analysis of the residential sector (Chapter 6). The study finalizes with a conclusion for
the three considered sectors based on the results of the economic comparison and some
reflections on the quality of the overall study.
15
The Mexican market for photovoltaic systems
2 The Mexican market for photovoltaic systems

2.1 Technical potential in Mexico
In Mexico the technical potential for the application of photovoltaic systems appears to be quite
promising. Already from a superficial point of view the yearly national average radiation of 5
kWh/m2/d appears to be quite high. Giving a closer look at the distribution of this average
radiation one will be surprised by the extremely high values of six and more kilowatt-hours per
square meter and day in some areas of the country.4 As desert lands these areas feature further
characteristics favourable for the application of photovoltaic systems like cloudless skies and a
regular distribution of the annual radiation. Adding further to the importance of this potential is
the existence of bigger settlements and cities in or close to these areas, e.g., the city of
Hermosillo. The daily electricity demand of the local households very often features curves
connected with the curve of the daily radiation which is due to the common use of cooling
equipment like ventilators and air conditioning posing a further advantage for the utilisation of
photovoltaic systems.
To illustrate this huge potential for photovoltaic in Mexico one should regard the fact that a mere
0.06% of the Mexican national territory would be sufficient to generate the overall electricity
consumption of Mexico by the means of photovoltaic assuming the consumption data of the year
2005 (Annex 1). Furthermore, one should not forget that the bigger part of that area is already
available as rooftops which can be used for photovoltaic applications without the need of sealing
further soil.5
2.2 Market overview

The Mexican photovoltaic market sales during 2006 were a little below 1 MW p, which reflects a
market recovery in comparison with the previous year. The estimation of the market
segmentation that could be found was as follows:
 511 kWp in rural electrification
 33 kWp in water pumping systems
 110 kWp for grid-connected photovoltaic systems
 55 kWp in professional applications (telecommunications, off-shore oil platforms, cathodic
protection, and eco-tourism)
 340 kWp of none defined off-grid applications.6
4
http://www.conae.gob.mx/wb/CONAE/CONA_1433_irradiacion_en_la_re
5
Obviously a 100% electricity coverage by the means of photovoltaic systems is no real objective and is thus only
theoretical. In this context the number is simply used to make the potential more tangible.
6
Photovoltaic Power Systems Programm – Annual Report 2006. International Energy Agency (IEA) – Photovoltaic
Power Systems Programm. Page 78.
17
The cumulative photovoltaic capacity installed in Mexico by the end of 2006 was 19.7 MW p.
Rural application is still the major application for photovoltaic systems serving as a solution for
off-grid electrification or to avoid the high tariffs for pumping water for irrigation. An important
trend in the Mexican photovoltaic market is the off- or on-grid application of systems as prestige
objects run by private companies or institutions to support or create a “green” corporate image.
Such kind of projects are currently under planning by VW in the city of Puebla, Walmart and
other companies or are already installed such as the well-known grid-connected photovoltaic
system of Green Corner in the Federal District. On the other hand, grid-connected photovoltaic
is attracting more and more the attention of the national utility (CFE) and government officials as
an alternative to support the electrical grid in some regions. As a result, pilot projects were
launched to gather scientific information and experience. An important project of that kind was
launched in 2006 by the Baja California State Government with technical support from the
Electrical Research Institute (IIE – Instituto de Investigaciones Electricas). The goal is the
construction of a photovoltaic neighbourhood of 500 low-income houses in the city of Mexicali, in
northwest Mexico, with one grid-connected photovoltaic array of 1 kW p each. The first phase of
the initiative will consist of 220 such installations, of which the first 110 systems came on line in
December 2006.7
Another project to analyze potentials of grid-connected photovoltaic systems was launched in

January 2000 by the IIE which is also the representing institution of Mexico in the Photovoltaic
Power Systems Programme (PVPS) of the International Energy Agency (IEA). Part of the
programme was the installation of four grid-connected systems in Mexicali, B.C. and a
demonstration plant in Hermosillo in the state of Sonora.8 As a production base for the
photovoltaic industry there are several assembly facilities in Mexico. Of these, only the company
ERDM Solar, a contractor of Q-Cells, produces for the Mexican market itself. The bigger
assembly facilities for photovoltaic cells produce under the so called “maquiladora” scheme in
the city of Tijuana. These maquiladoras take advantage of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) by exporting duty free to the USA.9 Among those are companies like United
Solar and Kyocera.10 11 Recently, the German solar cell producer Q-Cells announced an
investment in production capacity of up US $3.5 billion in the mid- to long-term in the state of
Baja California.12
7
8
Trends in Photovoltaic Applications – Survey report of selected IEA countries between 1992 and 2006. International
Energy Agency (IEA) – Photovoltaic Power Systems Programm. August 2007. Page 1.
9
10
http://www.uni-solar.com/
11
http://www.kyocera.de/
12
http://www.q-cells.com/
18
2.3 Regulatory framework

The regulatory body for the Mexican electricity and gas sector is the Regulatory Commission for
Energy (CRE – Comisión Reguladora de Energía) which is a deconcentrated agency of the
Federal Ministry of Energy (SENER – Secretaría de Energía) with technical and operational
autonomy.13
Concerning the application of small scale (up to 30kW) grid-connected photovoltaic systems the
“Contract for Interconnection of Small Scale Solar Energy Sources” (Contrato de Interconexión
para Fuente de Energía Solar en Pequeña Escala) is the regulatory basis for grid-connected use
of photovoltaic systems in Mexico. It was published by the CRE on the 27th July 2007 by
passing the Resolution No. RES/176/200. The purpose of this contract is to realize and regulate
the interconnection between potential photovoltaic electricity generators and the two operators of
the power grid – Electricity and Power of the Centre concerning the Federal District and the
Federal Commission for Electricity concerning all Mexican states with the exception of the
former.
The contract is based on the principle of “Net Energy Metering” that allows customers with an
eligible power generator to offset the cost of their electricity use with energy they feed into the
grid. A specially programmed “net meter” is installed to measure the difference between
electricity the customer purchases and exports to the grid. Methods for handling Net Metering
vary between different countries and even within a certain country. In the Mexican case each
kilowatt-hour exported to the grid is regarded as equal to a kilowatt-hour purchased from it. Thus
a generator has to pay the amount of energy his consume exceeds the energy generated by
himself. If more energy is fed in to the grid than consumed the difference is considered as a
credit which can be consumed by the generator within a period of 12 months.14
The contract applies to photovoltaic applications of up to 10 kW p serving residential uses and to
applications of up to 30 kW p for other low voltage uses. Up to now there is no regulatory
framework concerning the application of bigger industrial applications above 30 kW p. However
such systems will be discussed in the present study assuming the regulations of the “Contract
for Interconnection of Small Scale Solar Energy Sources”. In doing so, it was also assumed that
the electric output made available by the photovoltaic application will be offset against the peak
output demand invoiced by the CFE in accordance with its terms of calculation. For the two
industry and services sectors another law is important with respect to the use of renewable
energy sources. Article 40 XII of the “Law about the income tax“ (Ley de Impuestos sobre la
renta) allows companies a 100% deduction of the investment costs for machines or equipment
for the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources if the operation time exceeds a
minimum of five years.15 In the present study this deduction was applied for all photovoltaic
systems of the industry and services sectors.
13
Prospectiva del Sector Eléctrico 2006 – 2015. Secretaría de Energía. 2006.
14
Resolucion No. RES/176/2007. Secretaría de Energía.
15
Artículo 40 XII, Ley de Impuestos sobre la renta.
19
Mexican electricity tariffs
3 Mexican electricity tariffs

The existing electricity tariffs are always the benchmark for the generation costs of new energy
sources (together with generation costs of other technologies). For this reason to every financial
analysis of renewable energy sources such as photovoltaic systems in the present case, an
understanding of the tariffs is fundamental. Therefore, this chapter is dedicated to give a short
overview about the Mexican electricity tariffs and to provide all the information necessary for the
cost comparison in Chapter 6. The tariffs of CFE regarded in this chapter are the residential
tariffs of the group “Specific Tariffs” and for the in industry and services sector the tariffs for low,
medium and high voltage of the group “General Tariffs”.
3.1 Determining factors for electricity consumption in Mexico

3.1.1 Residential sector
Electrical energy consumption in the Mexican residential sector is mainly determined by the
determining factors shown in Figure 3.16
Figure 3: Determining factors for residential electricity consumption in Mexico
Determining factors for electricity consumption
Climate Season Income Equipment Habits
Source: Own display
Climate: Due to the size and location of its territory Mexico’s climate varies from subtropical
over alpine up to arid. Climate is the most important factor for the electricity consumption in
Mexico as it determines if households do or do not need to make use of air conditioning
equipment and what kind of equipment they use. In general ventilators are used at least
occasionally in all parts of the country, whereas evaporative air coolers are rather used in areas
of hot dry climate and air conditioning in hot dry and hot humid areas.17 Thus, depending on the
climate the electricity consumption varies in a wide range. For example, the average annual
electricity consumption of a user located in Hermosillo (practically a desert city) is several times
higher than the consumption of a user located in Guadalajara with a semi-dry/ semi-humid
climate.18
16
IIE Boletín – Resultados tecnologicos del sector electrico aplicables al petrolero.1998.
17
Seminario Nacional Sobre el Uso Racional de la Energia – Memoria Técnica. 1998.
18
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadalajara%2C_Jalisco
21
Season: Referring to electricity consumption, usually two seasons, summer and winter
(respectively non-summer) are distinguished. Summer is defined as the six successional hottest
months of the year. Again, because of the size of the country the start of the summer season
varies from February to May depending on the respective region. The seasonal impact on
electricity consumption is based on the same principle as the climatic one, i.e. during the warmer
season more electricity is used due to the use of air conditioning equipment and due to higher
electricity consume by refrigerators, for example. Furthermore, the seasonal impact on the
electricity consumption obviously correlates with the climate. In the Federal District (D.F. –
Distrito Federal) for example, electricity users consume approximately the same amount of
energy throughout the year with only a slight increase during the hotter months, whereas in
Mexicali (a city with extreme changes in temperatures) parts of the users consume up to five
times more during the summer season than compared to the winter season.19
Income, equipment, habits: Further determining factors with impact on the electricity
consumption are strictly connected with each other and cannot be regarded separately.
Obviously the amount of income of a household is most crucial to what kind of equipment is
affordable for it. The financial situation together with the habits and social factors like family size,
schedule of presence and absence from the household further decides how this equipment is
used. Although income distribution in Mexico is considered to have become more equal during
the last decade (see above) the differences found between regions as well as inside
communities can still be referred to as highly unequal. Furthermore family sizes tend to be
biggest in rural areas which at the same time feature lower income levels compared to the urban
areas. So, for many Mexican families electricity costs pose a significant monthly expense which
is why electricity prices for households and in particular for low consumption households are
highly subsidized by the government.20
3.1.2 Industry and services sectors

Obviously season and climate also have an impact on the electricity consumption of industrial
and in many cases even more on service companies. However, it is difficult to make general
statements for these sectors. In principal the electricity consumption of companies of both
sectors depends on their kind of business, production (industry), organisation (for example, two
or three work shifts) and used machinery. According to these determinants the course of the
electricity demand of companies is quite individual. Figure 4 points out to that fact by showing
some electricity demand graphs of different industrial branches. Figure 5 shows the same for
the service sector.
19
IIE Boletín – Resultados tecnologicos del sector electrico aplicables al petrolero.1998.
20
Seminario Nacional Sobre el Uso Racional de la Energia – Memoria Técnica. 1998
22
Figure 4: Examples for demand courses in the industry sector
Machine factory Electrical equipment factory
Wire factory Bread factory
Source: Prof. Dr. Voß, A.: Energiesysteme II – Rationelle Energieanwendung und Energieanlagen.
Institute for Energy Economics and Rational Use of Energy (IER). Page 23-26.
Figure 5: Examples for demand courses in the service sector
Indoor swimming pool Supermarket
School Hotel
Source: Prof. Dr. Voß, A.: Energiesysteme II – Rationelle Energieanwendung und Energieanlagen.
Institute for Energy Economics and Rational Use of Energy (IER). Page 23-26.
23
3.2 Overview of residential tariffs

The Mexican residential tariffs are structured by climate conditions. Seven groups of tariffs are
distinguished based on the minimum average temperature during summer (Table 13). Each of
these groups is further subdivided into ranges of consumption for different amounts of electricity
consumed per month. 21
Table 13: Overview of residential tariff groups (2007)
Tariff For locations with a minimum average temperature during summer of

1 < 25°C
1A ≥ 25°C and < 28°C
1B ≥ 28°C and < 30°C
1C 30°C
1D 31°C
1E 32°C
1F ≥ 33°C
Source: Own display
As described above climate is one of the most important factors for the electricity consumption.
Corresponding to that importance CFE’s tariffs were structured by temperatures in order to be
able to offer low electricity prices in hot areas where consumption is necessarily higher. That
also means that depending on the climatic varieties within a region there is not necessarily a
single tariff applying for a whole region but several.22 Each tariff itself again features a structure.
To get a clearer impression of this structure and to introduce the terms used throughout the
study Figure 6 shows a cutout of Tariff 1A as an example. The tariffs and its prices applied for
this study can be found in Annex 2.
21
CFE - http://www.cfe.gob.mx/es/InformacionAlCliente/conocetutarifa/
22
24
Figure 6: Residential tariff structure
Seasonal division Consumption range
Tariff 1A
Summer season
Consumption of up to 150 kWh per month
Range Jan. Feb. Mar.
Basic 1 - 100 0,541 0,543 0,545
Intermediate 0,642 0,644 0,646
Consumption exceeding 150 kWh per month
Basic 1 - 100 0,541 0,543 0,545
Intermediate 101 - 150 0,812 0,815 0,818
Exceeding 2,164 2,171 2,178
Winter season
Basic 1 - 75 0,621 0,623 0,625
Intermediate 0,735 0,737 0,739
Rango de consumo Jan. Feb. Mar.
Basic 1 - 75 0,621 0,623 0,625
Intermediate 76 - 125 1,022 1,025 1,028
Exceeding 2,164 2,171 2,178
Subconsumption ranges Tariff (price to customer)
Source: Own display
As can be seen, each tariff includes two ranges of consumption. For example in the case of
Tariff 1A, there is one range for users consuming less than 150 kWh per month and another
range for users consuming more than 150 kWh per month. The “lower consumption range” is
stronger subsidized than the “upper consumption range” following the political idea that prices
for the poor which commonly consume less energy should be lower. The limit of how much
electricity can be consumed monthly before the upper and more expensive range applies
increases step by step from Tariff 1 to 1F reflecting the aforementioned impact of the
temperature on electricity consumption as well as the political willingness not to discriminate
people living in areas with higher temperatures with higher electricity costs. Table 14 clarifies
that point by giving the invoice amounts for each tariff for an example of a consumption of 140
kWh for the month of June 2007. In accordance to what has been explained before the invoice
differs quite drastically from Tariff 1 to Tariff 1F.
25
Table 14 : Invoice amounts for a consumption of 140 kWh (June 2007)
Tariff Invoice amount for 140 kWh [$]

1 132,16
1A 81,18
1B 78,66
1C 77,14
1D 77,14
1E 62,44
1F 62,44
Source: Own display
Regarding the ranges a further subdivision can be observed. Figure 7 shows the structure of
Tariff 1A (prices of January, winter 2007) as an example.
Figure 7: Residential tariff substructure (Tariff 1A, January 2007)
Tariff [$] Tariff [$]

For consumption volumes For consumption volumes
(price to (price to
below 150 kWh above 150 kWh
customer) customer)
3.17 3.17
1.50 1.50
1.07 1.07
0.91 0.91
100 150 Consumption [kWh] 100 150 Consumption [kWh]
Source: Own display
According to what is shown in Figure 7 the electricity costs invoiced by the CFE to a given
household are calculated as follows:
 For example, 70 kWh were consumed in January (winter season), so the invoice would
be calculated as shown below. The prices of the line “Basic” apply for the first 75 kWh
consumed in the respective month:
70 kWh x 0.621 $/kWh

+ taxes
= invoice amount for electricity
26
 If more than 75 kWh (but less than 150 kWh) were consumed, then for the amount of
kilowatt-hours exceeding the 75 kWh limit the prices of the line “Intermediate” would
apply. If, for example, 90 kWh were consumed in January the invoice amount would be:
75 kWh x 0.621 $/kWh

+ 15 kWh x 0.735 $/kWh
+ taxes
With the exception of Tariff 1 it is further distinguished between summer and winter season
again due to the fact that higher temperatures cause higher electricity consumption. To
compensate this impact of the summer season, prices applied in summer are lower and
consumption limits for ranges as well as for the subdivision of the ranges (Basic, Intermediate,
Exceeding) are higher. So for example, in the case of Tariff 1A the prices of the line “Basic”
apply for the first 75 kWh of the monthly consumption during winter, whereas in summer “Basic”
prices apply for the first 100 kWh of the monthly consumption.
Another characteristic of the Mexican residential tariffs is the minimum consumption which is 25
kWh per month. These kilowatt-hours have to be paid for as a kind of service charge in the case
the client consumed less than 25 kWh.
To fully understand how the electricity prices are structured one last element of the tariffs must
be explained, the so called “DAC”. The Residential Electricity Tariff for High Consumption (DAC
– Servicio Domestico de Alto Consumo) applies for users whose electricity consumption
surpasses a certain top limit. In accordance with the consumption limits for ranges and
subdivisions of ranges this limit also depends on the tariff applying for the considered region and
increases step by step from Tariff 1 to Tariff 1F.23
Table 15 shows the consumption limits for each tariff, some selected cities, the corresponding
DAC regions as well as the respective DAC tariffs. For example, if a user to whom applies Tariff
1A consumes in Morelos consumes on average over the last 12 months more than 300 kWh a
month then the whole amount of kilowatt-hours is multiplied with the respective DAC tariff for the
region (instead of the “normal” residential tariffs) in order to calculate the amount to be invoiced
for electricity. DAC prices are higher than the usual tariffs as they are not subsidized. The DAC
prices applied for this study can be found in Annex 3.
23
http://www.cfe.gob.mx/es/InformacionAlCliente/conocetutarifa/
27
Table 15: DAC limits and tariffs in exemplary cities and regions (residential sector)
Tariff
Tariff DAC region Exemplary cities DAC limit [kWh/month]
[$/kWh]
1 Central Distrito Federal 250 2.54
1A South and Peninsula Cuautla 300 2.35
1B South and Peninsula Acapulco 400 2.35
1C North & Nordeast Monterrey 850 2.31
1D Baja California South (Summer/Winter) La Paz 1,000 2.69/2.12
1E Northwest Guaymas 2,000 2.37
1F Baja California (Summer/Winter) Mexicali 2,500 2.46/2.12
Source: Own display
In contrast to the “normal” or non-DAC electricity tariffs the overall electricity charge of the DAC
consists of two components. The first one is a price per kilowatt-hour whose value depends on
the considered month and region whereas six regions are distinguished. The second one is a fix
charge varying from month to month which is not related to the amount of electricity
consumption.24 The fix charge per month used is 58.61$ (Jan. 2007).
Continuing with the example of the user of the Tariff 1A, suppose that this user had a
consumption of 325 kWh in January and lives in the northwestern region, thus his invoice would
be calculated as follows:
325 kWh x 2.37 $/kWh

+ 58.61 $
+ taxes
From what has been explained it can be concluded that the electricity prices for Mexican
households are not only determined by the volume of consumption but also by season and
region. The structure of the tariffs corresponds with the determining factors of the electricity
consumption. This means, in hotter areas the structure compensates to some extent the
necessarily higher use of electricity by applying lower prices. On the other side, a limit is set by
the DAC to apply at least cost-covering prices above a certain use of electrical energy. The DAC
applies for volumes of electricity consumption clearly above Mexican average consumption
suggesting that the political idea behind is a kind of welfare-based top-down cross-subsidization
from the wealthy to the less wealthy part of the population. One might think that the DAC could
apply as well for large families which would foil the idea outlined before. However, data in Table
16 shows that more than a big family is needed to consume, for example, more than 1,000 kWh
a month in the case of Tariff 1D.
28
Table 16: Average monthly consumption data of equipments of a four-person household
Equipment Monthly consumption [kWh]

Washing machine 27 - 30
Refrigerator (180 liters) 20 - 30
Freezer (200-250 liters) 23 - 31
Small sized equipment 14
TV-set and Hifi-systems including standby 21
Personal computer 6
Illumination 39
Source: www.veoe.at/70.html?&L=
Summing up this chapter it is important to point out that concerning the Mexican household
tariffs two mechanisms are at work whose impact on the cost effectiveness of photovoltaic
systems must be clarified:
 The mechanism of subsidies being paid by the Mexican government in order to keep
tariffs low for the average Mexican household.
 The mechanism of offering more of these subsidies to regions which feature high
temperatures by applying higher consumption range limits to them.
3.3 Overview of tariffs for industry and services sectors

The tariffs applying for the industry and services sectors are structured according to the type of
interconnection to the grid into low, high and medium voltage tariff groups. Each tariff group
contains several tariffs. Table 17 shows the tariffs belonging to each group. Annex 8 shows the
tariffs and its prices in the year 2007 the study is based on.
Table 17: Tariffs for industry and services sector
Voltage Maximum demand/Transmission level Tariff
< 25 kW 2
Low voltage
≥ 25 kW 3
< 100 kW O-M
Medium voltage ≥ 100 kW H-M
≥ 100 kW, short-time utilisation H-MC
subtransmission H-S
subtransmission, long-time utilisation H-SL

High voltage
transmission H-T
transmission, long-time utilisation H-TL
Source: Own display
29
Low voltage: In the low voltage group Tariff 2 applies for an electricity capacity demand of up to
25 kW and Tariff 3 for the range above. The structure of Tariff 2 is similar to the residential tariffs
featuring different prices per kilowatt-hour for the subranges basic, medium and exceeding
consumption. Additionally Tariff 2 charges a fix monthly amount. Tariff 3 has a different
structure. It charges a price per kilowatt (capacity charge) of the maximum measured demand in
the respective month. This maximum demand is determined by CFE measuring the average
capacity demand for each interval of 15 minutes. Alongside Tariff 3 features a price per kilowatt-
hour as well.25
Medium voltage: Tariff O-M applies for a demand of up to 100 kW, Tariff H-M for the range
above and Tariff H-MC only for short utilization and only for the regions Baja California and
Northwest. They all three are further subdivided into regions and consist of a price per kilowatt-
hour as well as a capacity charge. For Tariff O-M the capacity charge is calculated in the same
way as for Tariff 3 depending on the measured maximum demand. In Tariff H-M and H-MC an
additional determinant is introduced: the point of time of the electricity consumption. In these
tariffs it is distinguished between base, intermediate and peak load energy consumption and
demand. So depending on the hour of consumption a different tariff applies per kilowatt-hour
again depending on the definition of the hours of the day as base, intermediate and peak load
demand interval.26 The more important allocations of these intervals of Tariff H-M being valid for
most of the regions are shown in Table 18.27
Table 18: Allocation of intervals for Tariff H-M (2007)
From the first Sunday of April until the Saturday before the last Sunday
of October
Day of the week Base Intermediate Peak
0:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 20:00 20:00 - 22:00
Monday to Friday
22:00 - 24:00
From the last Sunday of October until the Saturday before the first
Sunday of April
0:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 18:00 18:00 - 22:00
Monday to Friday
22:00 - 24:00
Source: http://www.cfe.gob.mx/aplicaciones/ccfe/tarifas/tarifas/Tarifas.asp?Tarifa=HMC
25
26
27
For more detailed information on the allocation of consumption periods visit
30
The charged capacity demand (DF – Demanda Facturada) is calculated by the following formula
of CFE:
DF = DP + FRI × max (DI - DP,0) + FRB × max (DB - DPI,0) (3-1)
 DP is the maximum capacity demand measured during the peak load interval
 DI is the maximum capacity demand measured during the intermediate load
interval
 DB is the maximum capacity demand measured during the base load interval
 DPI is the maximum capacity demand measured during the peak and
intermediate load intervals
 FRI and FRB are factors of reduction with the following values, depending on the
region:
Table 19: FRI and FRB values for Tariff H-M
Region FRI FRB

Baja California 0.141 0.070
Baja California South 0.195 0.097
Central 0.300 0.150
Northeast 0.300 0.150
Northwest 0.300 0.150
North 0.300 0.150
Peninsular 0.300 0.150
South 0.300 0.150
Source: http://www.cfe.gob.mx/aplicaciones/ccfe/tarifas/tarifas/Tarifas.asp?Tarifa=HM
The calculation of the capacity charge poses an incentive to the company to shift its electricity
demand peaks from the peak load interval to the intermediate load interval or – even better – to
the base load interval.
High voltage: The high voltage tariff group is further subdivided into subtransmission level,
Tariffs H-S and H-SL and transmission level, Tariffs H-T and H-TL. At the subtransmission level
electricity is provided at a tension of more than 35 kV but less than 220 kV. Electricity provided
at transmission level features a tension equal or above 220 kV. Tariffs H-SL and H-TL apply for
their respective level for long-time utilizations. All four tariffs are again subdivided into regions
and feature a price per kilowatt-hour and a capacity charge which both work in the same way as
in Tariff H-M.28 The formula used for calculating the charged demand is the same as shown
above for all tariffs with the exception that for the region Baja California a special formula is used
28
31
in this tariff group. The allocation of the intervals and the FRI and FRB values for the tariffs H-
S/H-SL and H-T/H-TL can be found in Annex 4 – Annex 7.
Summing up what has been explained about the tariffs for the industry and services sectors it
should be recorded that the main differences between these tariffs and the residential tariffs are:
 the applied capacity charge
 the dependence of the applying tariff upon the hour of the day (base, intermediate, peak
load)
 the absence of consumption ranges in all tariffs of the industry and services sectors but
Tariff 2.
32
Photovoltaic systems subject to analysis
4 Photovoltaic systems subject to analysis

To be able to determine the costs of a photovoltaic system the system itself and its ambient
conditions must be defined. Furthermore, this chapter describes how the systems for the
residential sector and for the industry and services sectors were designed and which
assumptions were made. The selection of the photovoltaic modules was subject to an
investigation of the Mexican photovoltaic market which also included the preparation of a
questionnaire being sent to several dealers. Figure 8 gives an overview of the components and
the installation of a grid-connected photovoltaic system.
Figure 8: Components of a grid-connected photovoltaic system
Photovoltaic module
Electricity
meter
(bidirectional)
kWh
Interruptors
Inverter
=
Source: www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/images/residential_grid_pv.gif
The market research showed that the most common photovoltaic modules in Mexico are
polycrystalline modules. Two of three Mexican photovoltaic systems listed in the IEA-PVPS
Performance Database use polycrystalline modules and also most dealers mainly offer
polycrystalline modules.29 As the study should reflect the present market situation and consider
products which are available to households, a polycrystalline module was also chosen for the
analysis. According to the quotation of some dealers a module efficiency of 16% is assumed for
the calculation. Such a value is quite high for a polycrystalline module but seems justified (see,
for example, the product KC200GHT-2 of Kyocera). In addition, the assumption of a rather high
efficiency has no impact on the cost analysis as it only influences the calculation of the
necessary area for the system.
29
http://www.iea-pvps-task2.org/database/index.htm
33
4.1 Photovoltaic Systems for the residential sector

For households two different system designs are regarded. The first one sizes the systems in
order to supply the total electricity demand of a household and thus should consider what is
theoretically possible. The second one considers systems providing a portion of the total
electricity demand which poses the actual case of application for photovoltaic systems. The
objective of this cost comparison is to derive conclusions about the impact of a photovoltaic
system on the electricity costs a household faces. In other words, it should be shown if a
photovoltaic system can save costs against the tariffs which would mean that the system is
financially feasible.
4.1.1 Performance ratio and efficiency loss factor

Regarding the effective energy production another factor is of great importance beyond the
module efficiency, the so called performance ratio. The performance ratio is the quotient of the
alternating current yield and the nominal yield of the generator’s direct current.30 Thus, it is
independent of the solar radiation. It can be used to compare the performance of photovoltaic
systems at different locations. It indicates which portion of the generated current can actually be
used. Important factors of influence on the performance ratio are the plant availability, inverter
efficiency, clouding and module temperature.31 Solar Modules based on crystalline cells can
reach a ratio of 0.85 to 0.95. Grid-connected systems usually have a performance ratio of 70 to
75%.32
In the model a performance ratio of 73% was chosen. However, resulting from the fact that the
module temperatures in summer differ widely among regions and therefore efficiencies of
modules in hot regions should be lower compared to module efficiencies in milder ones an
additional factor was introduced. As the tariffs are structured by the minimum average summer
temperatures (see Table 13) this factor reduces the module efficiency during summer by a value
depending on the tariff applying for the regarded city. Within this study, this factor is called
efficiency temperature loss factor Lt and is calculated as shown below.
 0.5%  (mt  25C )

Lt  (4-1))
º C above25ªC 2
mt: minimum average summer temperature of the tariff [°C]

As can be seen from the formula for each degree Celsius above the 25°C standard temperature
a 0.5% efficiency loss is considered.33 For the sizing of the systems for full supply the difference
between the norm temperature and the temperature scope of the tariff is divided by two as the
sizing of the photovoltaic system is performed for yearly average values which means that the L t
30
http://www.solarserver.de/lexikon/performance_ratio-e.html
31
http://www.bine.info/pdf/publikation/bi0303internetx.pdf
32
http://www.solarserver.de/lexikon/performance_ratio-e.html
33
http://www.level.org.nz/energy/renewable-electricity-generation/photovoltaic-systems/
34
efficiency loss occurring during the six hottest months of the year is split over the whole year. As
for the sizing of the systems for partial supply the individual months are regarded the factor is
only applied during the months of the summer period and thus is not divided by two. In other
words for the systems for full supply the Lt factor is applied in each of the twelve months of the
year whereas for the systems for partial supply only in the six hottest months. Table 20 gives the
assumed Lt values for the different tariffs.
Table 20: High temperature efficiency loss values
For locations with a minimum Lt [%]

Tariff
average temperature
Full supply Partial supply
1 < 25°C 0.00 0.00
1A = 25°C and < 28°C 0.00 0.00
1B = 28°C and < 30°C -0.75 -1.50
1C = 30°C -1.25 -2.50
1D = 31°C -1.50 -3.00
1E = 32°C -1.75 -3.50
1F = 33°C -2.00 -4.00
Source: Own display
As said before, the performance ratio usually includes the efficiency losses resulting from high
temperatures, so the resulting performance ratios actually assumed for summer are lower as the
high temperature losses were still not considered up to this point. These actual values of the
performance ratios are shown in Table 21 for the systems for partial supply and are calculated
as follows:
 pv  (1  Lt )  0.73 (4-2)
εpv: performance ratio
Table 21: Resulting performance ratios
Performance ratios (ε pv ) for systems for partial supply

Tariff
summer winter annual average
1 0.730 0.730 0.730
1A 0.730 0.730 0.730
1B 0.719 0.730 0.725
1C 0.712 0.730 0.721
1D 0.708 0.730 0.719
1E 0.704 0.730 0.717
1F 0.701 0.730 0.715
Source: Own display
35
4.1.2 Cities considered

Resulting from the fact that the general costs of photovoltaic systems depend to a large extent
on the solar radiation and due to the fact that a region cannot be associated with a single tariff,
four cities were selected for each tariff. Annex 9 shows those 29 cities considered in this study,
the tariffs which they belong to and their solar radiation data. Annex 10 shows the regions of the
DAC for each city. Again, regarding the average radiation of this cross section of Mexican cities
the high values of the data are striking. With an overall annual average of 5.23 kWh/m2/d the
radiation is about 60% higher than in Germany with an approximately annual average of 3.2
kWh/m2/d.34 While the variation of the solar radiation over the national territory in Germany is
rather small, Mexico shows quite some regional differences. In some cities in the Northeast of
Mexico an annual average radiation of up to 6 kWh/m2/d can be measured.35
4.1.3 Socio-economic parameters

Besides radiation there is another parameter independent from the technical characteristics of
the photovoltaic system which must be known to be able to calculate the costs of a photovoltaic
system: the electricity consumption. So, in the first attempt the costs should be calculated by
sizing the photovoltaic systems for model households with a respective typical monthly
subdivided annual demand curve for low, medium and high consumption intervals. But regarding
the results only a vague conclusion about other households whose consumption curve doesn’t
match the curve of the model households would have been possible.
More interesting and valuable would be information about the turning point at which generating
electricity by the means of photovoltaic starts to be cost-saving compared to buying the
electricity from the grid. It is quite obvious that this turning point – if existent – might lie between
the range limits of a tariff. In other words, it can be expected that if a photovoltaic system may
ever be cost-saving it becomes so at a consumption volume at which the tariff switches to a
higher price. Thus, for the sizing of the photovoltaic systems the electricity amounts of the
respective range limits of the tariffs are assumed as the respective consumption levels of the
households. Table 22 gives an overview about the assumed volume of consumption per month
for each tariff and also shows the range and DAC limits to make clear why the respective volume
has been chosen.
34
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaik
35
http://www.conae.gob.mx/wb/CONAE/CONA_1433_irradiacion_en_la_re
36
Table 22: Assumed consumption levels of model households

Range
Consumption [kWh]
(winter/summer)
&
DAC
limits
Tariff [kWh/month] Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140
1 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249
250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
1A 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299
300
300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
175/225 175 175 175 175 225 225 225 225 225 225 175 175
1B 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399
400
400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
175/300 175 175 175 175 300 300 300 300 300 300 175 175
1C 849 849 849 849 849 849 849 849 849 849 849 849
850
850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850
200/400 200 200 200 200 400 400 400 400 400 400 200 200
1D 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999
1,000
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
250/750 250 250 250 250 750 750 750 750 750 750 200 200
1E 1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999
2,000
2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
250/1,200 250 250 250 250 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 250 250
1F 2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499
2,500
2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 2,500 2,500
Source: Own display
As can be seen up from Tariff 1B the range limits differ between winter and summer due to high
differences in temperature between the two seasons. The DAC limit for Tariff 1F does only apply
during the winter season, so during the summer season there is no DAC. That means during
summer the range limit to be regarded is 1,200. In this range the highest prices are paid for the
amount of kilowatt-hours exceeding 2,500 kWh. That is why for the highest volume of
consumption regarded a consumption of 20% higher than that amount was assumed in order to
get a significant result (3,000 kWh). For the sizing and for the cost comparison the consumption
volumes of the households are assumed to be fix over the regarded 20 year period. The reason
is that the model does not replace any exact calculation and sizing of a photovoltaic system for
the individual household. Therefore an assumption of a ceasing or decreasing future
consumption would be of no further significance.
Using the radiation data and the assumptions on consumption as well as the performance ratios
the photovoltaic systems for the 29 cities were dimensioned in the following. Two cases of
system sizing were considered: first, systems supplying the whole amount of electricity
demanded by the household (full supply) and afterwards systems supplying only a portion of the
demand (partial supply) thereby reducing the household’s consumption of electricity from the
grid to a lower consumption range where a lower tariff applies.
37
4.1.4 Sizing of photovoltaic systems for full electricity supply

With regard to the sizing of the grid-connected photovoltaic systems supplying the total
electricity consumed by a household it is important to consider that in accordance with the
current Mexican regulation the generated electricity has to meet only the consumption over the
considered period of one year. It is not necessary to adjust daily and seasonal variations of the
electricity generated by the system and the demand of the household to each other. Since the
electricity is fed into the grid it is of no importance to the owner of the system at which time the
electricity is generated nor which output is made available at a certain point of time. In other
words the installed system should simply be sufficient to generate the electricity needed
throughout the year by the household.The sizing of the photovoltaic system was performed as
shown in the following steps:
1. Calculation of the electricity generated on average per year PfinalPV [kWh/m2/a]:
Pfinalpv  r  365  pv  pv (4-3)
r: radiation [kWh/m2/d]
ηpv: module efficiency
εpv: performance ratio
2. Calculation of required photovoltaic area Apv [m2]:
12  e
Apv  (4-4)
Pfinalpv
e: average monthly consumption [kWh/month]
3. Calculation of the required installed capacity of the photovoltaic system Pinstall [kW p]:
W
Pinstall  Apv  pv  1000 (4-5)
m2
The installed capacity is a standardized data measuring the output of a photovoltaic module at a
radiation of 1000 W/m2. Thus it serves also as a reference value to compare photovoltaic
systems. The results of the sizing on the basis of the approach shown above are given in Annex
11. In some regions featuring very high range limits in their respective tariffs the systems result
to be bigger than the 10 kW limit set by the Contract for Interconnection of Small Scale Solar
Energy Sources if a full supply solution is considered. Nevertheless these systems are regarded
here in order to get a complete overview about the costs and their proportion to the grid
electricity costs for all regions.
38
4.1.5 Sizing of photovoltaic systems for partial electricity supply

Systems supplying only a part of the electricity being demanded by the household pose the
concrete and realistic case of application for grid-connected photovoltaic systems. In Mexico,
from the perspective of the household (micro-economic approach), the purpose of a photovoltaic
system application supplying a part of the electricity demanded by a household should be to size
the system in a way that it reduces the effective electricity price of the tariff. So even if
photovoltaic generation costs are not cheaper than the effective price for electricity purchased
from the grid, there might still be the chance to save money by achieving a change in the tariff to
the customer.
The sizing of such a system is obviously more complex than the sizing of the full supply
systems. On the one hand, it has to be clarified what percentage of the electricity consumption
of the household should be provided by the photovoltaic system. On the other hand, the
individual month must be regarded resulting from the fact that the electricity tariffs refer to the
monthly consumption. Referring to the former, the sizing is based on the range and DAC
consumption limits of the different tariffs. In other words, the respective range or DAC limits are
subtracted from the regarded amount of electricity consumption to determine the amount of
electricity to be supplied by the photovoltaic system. Therefore the volume considering the DAC
in the sizing of the systems for full electricity supply obviously does not serve at this point. That
is why an additional consumption volume is considered which is 20% higher than the DAC limit
of the respective tariff (
Table 23). The consumption volumes of Table 22, which were used to consider the DAC in the
analysis for systems for full supply (for example 2,000 kWh in Tariff 1E), are also used in the
analysis for the systems for partial supply. In their case the respective consumption limit of the
consumption range next below the DAC was subtracted.
Table 23: Additional consumption volumes for the analysis of systems for partial supply
Monthly consumption volumes [kWh]

Tariff Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
1A 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360
1B 480 480 480 480 576 576 576 576 576 576 480 480
1C 970 970 970 970 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 970 970
1D 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,200 1,200
1E 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,880 2,880 2,880 2,880 2,880 2,880 2,400 2,400
1F 300 300 300 300 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 300 300
Source: Own display
Regarding Table 23 it can be observed that in Tariff 1B to Tariff 1E the consumption volumes
differ from winter to summer. This is due to an assumption of a 20% increase in electricity
consumption during summer. Because of the individual structure of Tariff 1F it turned out that the
chosen consumption volumes were not significant for the consideration of the system of partial
supply. In Tariff 1F the highest prices during summer apply for a consumption of more than 1200
kWh per month. In order to analyze a photovoltaic system for partial supply for this tariff this
range limit appears to be most crucial what can be easily understood by regarding Annex 2
39
which is why an additional consumption volume of 1440 kWh was chosen for the summer
period. For the winter period a consumption volume was chosen for which the highest range
(“Exceeding”) below the DAC applies. The difference in electricity consumption between summer
and winter appears to be quite high in this case in comparison with the other chosen
consumption volumes. Nevertheless, studies showed that this difference is quite realistic for
households for which Tariff 1F applies.36The sizing of the photovoltaic system was performed as
shown by the following steps:
1. Calculation of the required PV area in the different months AmPV [m2]:
en
Ampv  (4-6)
r  30  pv   pv
en: consumption volume of the respective month [kWh]
2. Determination of the final photovoltaic area Apv [m2]:
Apv = Median of the 12 AmPV (4-7)
3. Calculation of the required installed output of the photovoltaic system Pinstall [kW p]:
W
Pinstall  Apv  pv  1000 (4-8)
m2
As the Tariffs 1B to 1F allow higher electricity consumption without price increase (higher range
limits) during summer the sizing of the respective photovoltaic systems is based on this period.
The sizing of the photovoltaic systems of Tariff 1F is performed a little bit different as for this
tariff the DAC does not apply during summer. Nevertheless, the sizing is based on the summer
period as this is the more critical period with regard to the focus of the present study. The reason
is that the consumption during summer is usually much higher in the respective regions of Tariff
1F whereas the highest range limit applying during summer is 1,200 kWh in contradiction to the
DAC limit of 2,500 kWh applying during winter. In other words it is far more likely that the highest
summer limit will be crossed by a household than the DAC limit in winter. So, in the case of Tariff
1F 1,200 kWh are subtracted from the monthly consumption of the household in order to
determine the amount of electricity to be produced by the photovoltaic system.
36
IIE Boletín – Resultados tecnologicos del sector electrico aplicables al petrolero. 1998.
40
4.2 Photovoltaic systems for industry and services sectors

For the industry and services sectors only the photovoltaic option supplying a portion of the total
electricity demand of a company was studied. The option for full supply makes no sense in these
sectors as here it is not only the supplied amount of energy which has to be regarded but also
the capacity made available by the photovoltaic system. A full supply option in this case would
not only be unrealistic from a financial point of view but even more from a technical one as a full
supply option would bind all business processes to the weather and the course of the sun.
4.2.1 Performance ratio

For the performance ratio the same value (0.73) was chosen as in the residential sector with the
difference that no high temperature efficiency loss was considered. This is due to the different
structure of the tariffs for the industry and services sector (hence, no distinction between
different climates) and the resulting different approach which considers the same value of
radiation for all regions. As the temperature efficiency loss was introduced to consider the impact
of high temperatures on the overall performance when comparing photovoltaic systems in
different climates, it is of no use in the analysis of the sectors industry and services.
4.2.2 Regions considered

For the tariffs 2 and 3 it was not necessary to distinguish different regions due to their structure.
For each tariff from Tariff O-M to HT-L the three most significant regions were regarded. In this
context most significant means the regions with the highest, intermediate and lowest tariff. Table
24 shows for each tariff the studied regions
Table 24: Tariffs and studied regions
Tariff Regions
Baja California
O-M, H-M,
Central
H-S, H-SL
Northeast
H-MC Northeast
Baja California
H-T, H-TL Central
Peninsula
Source: Own display
As a certain region cannot be associated with a certain radiation value the calculation was
performed with general values of radiation for all regions. The first value assumed for the annual
average radiation is 6.0 kWh/m2/d which is far above the national annual average radiation
based on the idea that if photovoltaic systems do not save cost under the most favourable
conditions a further inquiry makes no sense. In the case of being cost-saving an annual average
radiation of 5.5 kWh/m2/d is regarded. If for that value systems proof to be cost-saving too, the
annual average radiation values of 5.0 and 4.5 kWh/m2/d were regarded. Below the value of 4.5
kWh/m2/d no further values were regarded as this value is already far below the Mexican
average radiation based on the idea that private investment should be concentrated on the
41
available high amount of areas featuring favourable conditions and should not be used for a few
featuring worst conditions.
4.2.3 Socio-economic parameters

As has been said, industrial and service companies feature quite individual electricity
consumption characteristics which is why a generalisation is difficult. In order to get significant
results thus a low, medium and high consumption volume were regarded for each tariff. The
difficulty in the analysis for these sectors is the mentioned demand charge which makes it
inevitable to also have a look on the capacity demand. So, the mentioned consumption volumes
were connected with a respective low, medium and high demand for capacity. Beyond these
three cases also the two cases of a high consumption volume and a low maximum demand in
capacity and vice versa were considered in order to clarify, if possible, which one of the two
prices has the higher impact. To get an imagination of the average consumption volumes in the
different tariffs CFE was asked to provide data on a monthly basis. The considered consumption
volumes of Table 25 are based on these data whereas the maximum demands in capacity were
assumed due to the scope of each tariff.
Table 25: Considered capacity demand and consumption levels
Capacity demand and consumption

Tariff
Low Medium High High/low Low/high
2 kWh/month 135 270 540
kW 26 63 100 100 26
3
kWh/month 2,300 4,600 9,200 2,300 9,200
kW 10 50 99 99 10
O-M
kWh/month 2,650 5,300 10,600 2,650 10,600
kW 110 200 300 300 110
H-M
kWh/month 38,500 77,000 144,000 38,500 144,000
kW 110 200 300 300 110
H-MC
kWh/month 30,000 60,000 120,000 30,000 120,000
kW 150 300 600 600 150
H-S
kWh/month 855,000 1,710,000 3,420,000 855,000 3,420,000
kW 150 300 600 600 150
H-SL
kWh/month 1,990,000 3,980,000 7,960,000 1,990,000 7,960,000
kW 250 500 1,000 1,000 250
H-T
kWh/month 4,050,000 8,100,000 16,200,000 4,050,000 16,200,000
kW 250 500 1,000 1,000 250
H-TL
kWh/month 19,500,000 39,000,000 78,000,000 19,500,000 78,000,000
Source: Own display
For the tariffs H-M to H-TL it is also necessary to define what percentage of the overall electricity
is consumed in which interval. Regarding the allocation of the load intervals it can be observed
that from Monday to Friday from 6:00 a.m. to at least 7:00 p.m. is an intermediate load interval. It
can be expected that the strongest demand for electricity of most companies of the industry and
services sectors is during the same period, even more because of the way the charged capacity
is calculated (see 3-1). On the other side it can be expected that most companies have a quite
low electricity demand during the peak and base load intervals as the peak load interval is only
42
about three hours a day and the base load interval from about 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. where
most services rest and industrial processes are down. This is why the general division of the
assumed electricity consumptions shown in Table 26 was assumed.
Table 26: Division of overall kWh consumption
Peak load consumption 15%

Medium load consumption 70%
Base load consumption 15%
Source: Own display
4.2.4 Sizing
Unlike in the residential sector here the photovoltaic system cannot have an impact such as a
tariff drop (price to customer drop). The possibility of a change in tariff was not considered as it
could not be seen if such a change were desirable for a company or not as unlike in the
residential sector there is nothing like a steady price increase from Tariff 2 to H-TL. Far from it,
the average annual prices of Baja California of Tariff H-T are lower than in Tariff H-S, for
example. In general it can be said that a statement which tariff would be more profitable for a
business could only be made considering the individual electricity consumption and demand
characteristics of a company which is neither possible nor desired in this study. So the study is
limited to the analysis of the impact of a photovoltaic system supplying 5% of the total
consumption volume of a company. Accordingly, the sizing was performed how described under
the steps 1 to 3 of the sizing for the system for full electricity supply.
After the installed capacity of the photovoltaic system is determined, the impact of the output
made available by the system on the electricity demand of the company was calculated. This
calculation was performed on the generalized assumption that electricity is produced by the
photovoltaic cells during twelve hours a day only. This assumption was made with the help of
some examples of the course of the radiation measured by the National Meteorological Service
(SMN – Servicio Meteorológico Nacional) which are shown in Annex 13. Also on the basis of
these courses it was assumed that the ratio between the average peak radiation value of the five
hours with the highest radiation and the average medium radiation of the remaining seven hours
is about 2.4. Together with the assumed average annual radiation (r) the respective average
peak (rp) and medium radiation (rm) values are calculated by the following formulas:
r  2(5  rp  7  rm ) (4-9)
with
43
rp  2.4  rm (4-10)
r: average annual radiation [kWh/m2/d]

rp: average peak radiation [kWh/m2/d]
rm: average medium radiation [kWh/m2/d]
Based on the values for the average peak and medium radiation the capacity of the photovoltaic
system during the peak (Pp) and the medium radiation period (Pm) is calculated:
Pp / m  Apv  pv   pv  rp / m (4-11)
Pp/m: average peak/medium photovoltaic capacity [kW]
44
Cost calculation
5 Cost calculation
In order to come up with a sound basis for an investment decision regarding a photovoltaic
system in Mexico one has to compare the electricity generation costs of a photovoltaic system
(Investment Case) with those expenses offset by generating energy with the photovoltaic
system, i.e. the tariffs one would have to afford in case of continued consumption from the grid
(Reference Case).The problem at this point is that the costs of photovoltaic systems mainly
consist of the investment costs which have to be paid at the moment of the acquisition of the
system. As photovoltaic systems do not contain any mechanical equipment and therefore
feature a low deterioration, annual operation and maintenance costs are quite low. On the other
side, the costs for electricity purchased from the grid are variable periodical costs which are
claimed in Mexico either every month or every second month. In other words, costs consisting
mainly of one-time investment costs need to be compared with periodically emerging costs over
time. For this reason an Excel model was prepared as part of the present study offering the
possibility to calculate the electricity costs of photovoltaic system and the costs for electricity
purchased from the grid on the basis of net present values.
5.1 Tariff costs

For the calculation of the net present values of the tariffs another formula was used as for the
operation and maintenance costs of the photovoltaic systems due to the fact that an annual price
increase was included in the calculation. Between 1999 to 2006 electricity prices of the
residential and industry sector increased by an annual average of 11%. The service sector
showed a price increase of 7.5%.37 For the calculation an annual price increase of 8% is
assumed for the residential sector and a 7% increase for the industry and services sectors as
the intention of the study is to follow a rather conservative point of view.
The following formula was used to calculate the monthly net present value for every year of the
regarded 20 year period:38
g (1  p) n
C (5-1)
(1  i ) n
g: periodical costs, here tariff of the respective month

p: rate of annual price increase
i: discount rate
n: regarded period, for example physical or economic lifetime
37
http://www.sener.gob.mx/webSener/res/PE_y_DT/ee/
38
Prof. Dr. Voß, A. – Energiesysteme I - Grundlagen der Energiewirtschaft und Energieversorgung, Volume 1. Institut
for Energy Economics and Rational Use of Energy (IER
45
Cost calculation
For the cost calculation in the residential sector the calculated net present values of each month
are summed up over the 20 year period in the second step. The total tariff costs of one month
over the 20 years can now be calculated by multiplying this sum with the consumption of the
regarded month. The final total costs are calculated by summing up these results over the twelve
months. Table 27 shows an example.
Table 27: Example: tariff net present value costs
Jan Feb … Nov Dec Final tariff

costs as net
Consumption [kWh] a 70.0 70.0 … 70.0 70.0 present value
Net present value sums [$] b 22.1 22.1 … 22.8 22.8 [$]
Monthly costs over 20 years [$] axb 1,547.0 1,547.0 … 1,596.0 1,596.0 18,851
Source: Own display
The list containing the calculated net value sums can be found in Annex 14. For the industry
and services sectors an average annual price was calculated instead of using the formula for the
tariff of every month like for the residential sector. This was possible as in the structure of the
tariffs for the industry and services sectors there is no seasonal difference between summer and
winter like in the residential tariffs which means that no information is lost by the approach. To
calculate the electricity invoice per year the annual average tariff is multiplied by twelve (for
twelve months) and taxes are added. In the second step the formula above is used to calculate
the net present value for each of the twenty years. Finally, these net present values are summed
up and multiplied with the respective regarded annual consumption volume. The average tariff
and their final net present value sum for the twenty year period can be found in Annex 15.
5.2 Financial parameters and assumptions

Table 28 shows a summary of all assumed financial parameters used for the cost comparison
for the residential sector
Table 28: Financial parameters for the residential sector
Discount rate 8%
Annual O&M costs of PV system 0.8%
Annual price increase of electricity tariffs 8%
VAT (Mex. IVA) 15%
PV operating time 20a
Source: Own display
The percentage rate of the annual operation and maintenance costs refers to the investment
costs of the photovoltaic system. These costs include, for example, costs for replacing the
inverters which have an average life time of ten years, costs for technical support and fault
clearance. The value used for “Taxation of profits” reflects the percentage of the investing costs
for a photovoltaic system a company can depreciate in line with the “Ley de impuestos sobre la
renta” and was determined in accordance with Conuee.
46
Cost calculation
Table 29 shows the respective assumed financial parameters for the cost comparison of the
industry and services sectors.
Table 29: Financial parameters for the industry and services sectors
Discount rate 8%
Annual O&M costs of PV system 0.5%
Annual price increase of electricity tariffs 7%
VAT (Mex. IVA) 15%
Taxation of profits 28%
PV operating time 20a
Source: Own display
5.3 Scenarios
As photovoltaic system prices proved to be quiet unstable in the past and innovations are
expected in the next years, three different price scenarios are analyzed by the present study.39
The prices assumed in the first scenario are based on the evaluation of the current market
situation in Mexico. Scenario 2 and 3 give an outlook for the coming five years by assuming a
decrease in prices of photovoltaic systems. The prices include all the costs for the necessary
equipment and the components, the installation, the grid connection and the value added tax.
Table 30 gives the prices assumed by the scenarios for the residential sector. For the industry
and services sectors the prices are shown in Table 31. These feature decreasing system costs
for bigger installations due to economy of scale effects which was also reaffirmed by the
questioned dealers.
Table 30: Scenario prices for the residential sector
Price
PV system cost
decrease
[$/kW p] [%]
Scenario 1 103,000
Scenario 2 82,400 -20
Scenario 3 51,500 -50
Source: Own display
39
Trends in Photovoltaic Applications – Survey report of selected IEA countries between 1992 and 2006. International
Energy Agency (IEA) – Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme. August 2007. Page 1
47
Cost calculation
Table 31: Scenario prices for the industry and services sectors
PV system costs [$/kWp]

1 - 50 kW p 101,000 80,800 50,500
50 - 100 kW p 96,500 77,200 48,250
100 - 300 kW p 92,200 73,760 46,100
300 - 500 kW p 90,200 72,160 45,100
Price decrease [%]: -20 -50
Source: Own display
As already mentioned above, the prices of Scenario 1 were acquired by a survey of local
Mexican dealers and manufacturers. Another subject of this survey were the expectations for the
future price development of photovoltaic systems. Scenario 3 is based on these expectations
whereas the price reduction of Scenario 2 was assumed to consider a much more conservative
development as the nature of the questioned companies suggested that their expectations were
biased and thus have to be considered as quite optimistic.
5.4 Photovoltaic system costs

The net present value of the photovoltaic system costs were calculated using the following
formula and parameters:
g (1  i) n  1
C (5-2)
i (1  i )
g: periodical costs, here operation and maintenance costs

i: discount rate
n: regarded period, for example physical or economic lifetime
The present formula calculates the value at present of a periodically emerging cost at a specific
date. The discounted value of the cost is determined by reducing its value by the appropriate
discount rate for each unit of time between the time when the cost is to be valued to the time of
the emergence of the cost.40
The cost comparison considers a period of 20 years as in a questionnaire dealers quoted a 20
year guarantee and an average operating time of 25 years at an average 80% of the initial
efficiency due to efficiency losses at the end of the operating time. The operating time of the
40
Prof. Dr. Voß, A. – Energiesysteme I - Grundlagen der Energiewirtschaft und Energieversorgung, Volume 1.
Institute for Energy Economics and Rational Use of Energy (IER).
48
Cost calculation
photovoltaic system has been chosen due to the fact that the emerging costs after the expiration
of the guarantee are quite unpredictable and that a decrease of efficiency would have been
difficult to simulate in the Excel model. Therefore it was calculated with an operating time of 20
years during which the efficiency was assumed to remain at a 100% of the initial efficiency.
The formula above was used for the calculation of the net present value of the annual operation
and maintenance costs (O&M) of the photovoltaic system. The net present value of the
investment costs is equal to the investment costs as the calculation regards the acquisition of
the photovoltaic system at the moment when the costs are valued.
5.4.1 Residential sector - Photovoltaic systems for full electricity supply

The results of the cost calculation of the photovoltaic systems for the 29 cities are shown in
Annex 16. Table 32 shows an example of the calculation of the overall costs a household would
face.
Table 32: PV Generation cost calculation for residential sector (Full Supply)
Average CFE minimum Overall PV

Overall PV Annual Net present PV
consumption costs for system costs
Radiation investment O&M value of Generation
per month of consumption as net
City costs costs O&M costs costs
PV user of 25 kWh present value
[kWh/month] [kWh/m2/d] [$] [$/a] [$] [$] [$] [$/kWh]
140 5.73 93,181 745 7,319 4,361 106,328 3.69

249 5.73 181,499 1,452 14,256 4,361 202,918 3.69
Durango
250 5.73 182,310 1,458 14,320 4,361 203,804 3.69
300 5.73 222,823 1,783 17,502 4,361 248,111 3.69
Source: Own display
The values contained in the column “Overall PV investment costs” result from multiplying the
required installed PV output with the PV system cost per kilowatt peak of Table 30 24.
Furthermore, the final entry contains a mark-up of 1.4%. The reason for that is that calculating
the potentially electricity which can be produced by one square meter a year (“Average annually
generated energy”) by using the yearly average radiation causes a difference from the
respective calculation for the systems for partial supply which are calculated on the basis of
monthly average radiation data. This causes the generation costs of the systems for full supply
to be lower by more or less 1.4%. The adaptation of the overall costs for the systems for full
supply was important for the Excel model used to perform the cost comparison as the
consideration of the systems for full supply is made in the model to indicate at which point the
generation costs of photovoltaic systems turn out to be lower than the tariffs. Without the
adaptation a case could occur in which the system of full supply is cost-saving whereas the
system for partial supply is not which would be contradictory.
49
Cost calculation
To make the calculation of the photovoltaic system costs clearer the entries of Table 32 are
explained in the following:
 The column “Net present value of O&M cost” gives the sum of the net present values of
the O&M costs for a 20 year period.
 “CFE minimum costs for consumption of 25 kWh” pays respect to the fact that CFE
claims a monthly minimum consume of 25 kWh.41 The net present value of this
periodically emerging cost is calculated how explained above.
 The “Overall PV system costs as net present values” are the sum of the columns “Overall
PV investment costs”, “Net present value of O&M costs” and “CFE minimum costs for
consumption of 25 kWh”.
 The last column shows the generation costs per kWh which are calculated from the
“Overall PV system costs as net present value” minus the “CFE minimum costs for
consumption of 25 kWh” by dividing it by the “Average consumption per month of PV
user” minus 25 kWh (CFE minimum consumption) multiplied by 20 (years) and 12
(months). Formula 5-3 shows the calculation of the generation costs.
Ctotal  C min
cg  (5-3)
20  12(e  25)
cg: generation costs [$/kWh]

Ctotal: overall PV system costs as net present value [$]
Cmin: CFE minimum costs for consumption of 25 kWh [$]
e: average monthly consumption [kWh]
41
Prof. Dr. Voß, A. – Energiesysteme II – Rationelle Energieanwendung und Energieanlagen. Institute for Energy
Economics and Rational Use of Energy (IER). Page 23 –26
50
Cost calculation
The example below shows the calculation as explained above.
City: Durango
Consumption: 140 kWh/month
Required installed output: 0.9 kW p
Overall PV investment costs: 0.9 kW p x 103,000 $/ kW p = 92,700$
O&M costs: 92,700 $ x 0.8% = 741.6 $
Overall PV system costs as net present value: 92,700 $ + 7,319 $ + 4,361 $ = 104,380 $
The slight variation of the example’s result comes from the fact that the required installed output
has been rounded up. In the actual calculation this value was not rounded although it can be
argued that an output of, for example, 0.905 kW p would never be installed. The calculation of the
photovoltaic systems supplying the total amount of electricity consumption is performed in order
to calculate the generation costs as well as to observe how the costs of the photovoltaic systems
behave towards the costs of the electricity tariffs and to have a common basis on which they can
be compared. Obviously, in a realistic case taking into account usual fluctuations in the monthly
consumption only a part of the electricity consumption would be supplied by the photovoltaic
system. That is also the reason why when calculating the generation costs the “CFE minimum
costs for consumption of 25 kWh” are left aside as they do not directly pose actual generation
costs.
5.4.2 Residential sector - Photovoltaic systems for partial electricity supply

The photovoltaic system costs and their net present values are calculated in the same way as
for the systems for full electricity supply. Regarding the overall costs the difference between the
two system designs is that the costs for the portion of electricity purchased from the grid must be
calculated for the systems for partial supply. So, in a further step the electricity generation of the
already sized photovoltaic system is calculated.
E pv  r  30   pv  Apv (5-4)
Epv: monthly electricity generation of PV system [kWh]
The produced electricity is than subtracted from the energy consumption of the respective
month. For the remaining amount the costs are calculated as net present values how explained
above. The calculated costs for the photovoltaic systems for partial electricity supply are shown
in Annex 17.
51
Cost calculation
5.4.3 Industry and services sector

Calculating the total costs for a company applying a photovoltaic system the impact on both
elements the electricity invoice consists of – electricity consumption and capacity demand – has
to be regarded. According to the allocation of intervals in the tariffs for low, medium and high
voltage and due to the fact that the most efficient hours of the day of a photovoltaic system for
the generation of electricity are in general from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. the generated kilowatt-
hours of the photovoltaic system were subtracted from the kilowatt-hours consumed during the
intermediate load interval (6:00 am – 8:00 p.m.).42 For the tariffs distinguishing base,
intermediate and peak load intervals the entries “Base load consumption”, “Intermediate load
consumption” and “Peak load consumption” show the electricity volume generated by the
photovoltaic system which has to be subtracted from the respective entry. For the tariffs 2, 3 and
O-M there is no such entry. The new grid electricity consumption is the difference between the
entries “Consumption without PV” and “Average monthly generated electricity”. Table 33 shows
for scenario 3 an example how the costs were calculated.
42
www.enalmex.com/paginas/como.htm
52
Cost calculation
Table 33: Cost calculation for industry and services sectors

Tariff H-M
Unit
Central
Charged capacity demand (DF - Demanda facturable) kW 200 120
Consumption without PV kWh/month 77,000 144,000
Overall costs as net present value without PV $ 36,899,461 57,324,644
Installed PV output kW p 28.1 52.6
PV area m2 175.63 328.75
Average monthly generated electricity kWh 3,794 7,101
Impact of PV generated electric work on:
Peak load consumption kWh 0 0
Medium load consumption kWh -3,794 -7,101
Base load consumption kWh 0 0
Impact of PV output:
Average peak radiation (rp) kW/m2 0.379 0.379
2
Average medium radiation (rm) kW/m 0.158 0.158
Average peak output (Pp) kW 7.986 14.949

Average medium ouput (Pm) kW 3.328 6.229
Reduction of DF kW -1.697 -3.177
DF with PV kW 198.3 116.8
PV system costs
PV investment costs $ 1,419,050 2,537,950
Annually O&M costs $ 7,095 12,690
Net present value of O&M costs (20a) $ 69,662 124,590
Overall PV system costs as net present value $ 1,488,712 2,662,540
Electricity costs as net present value $ 35,766,973 55,204,756
Depreciation due to "Ley sobre los Impuestos de la renta" $ -397,334 -710,626
Overall costs as net present value with PV $ 36,858,352 57,156,670
Source: Own display
For the capacity demand it was assumed that the company has its peak capacity demand during
the intermediate load interval as there is an incentive for the company to avoid their demand
peak to be during the peak load interval and due to the intention to take a conservative
approach. Furthermore, the intermediate load interval is the longest in time which makes the
assumption even more probable. In order to determine the impact of the photovoltaic system on
the charged capacity demand (DF) an output of the system has to be determined which can be
assumed to be deliverable by the photovoltaic system in average during the time of the demand
peak of the company. Obviously, the assumption that the company’s demand peak coincides
with the average peak output of the photovoltaic system (Pp) calculated in Formula 4-11 would
not be realistic. On the other side it would be too conservative to assume that the photovoltaic
system only supplies the calculated medium output (Pm) during the company’s peak capacity
demand. That is why an average (Pav) of the average peak output (Pp) and the average medium
output (Pp) is calculated.
53
Cost calculation
Pp  Pm
Pav  (5-5)
2
Pav: average photovoltaic output during peak demand of the company [kW]
In the next step of the determination of the photovoltaic system’s impact on the DF the Formula
3-1 CFE applies to calculate the DF, has to be considered. This formula applies a factor called
FRI to reduce (note that FRI is always <1) the difference of the maximum capacity demand
measured during the peak load interval and the maximum capacity demand measured during
the intermediate load interval. As it is assumed that the company’s peak capacity demand is
during the intermediate load interval, the FRI factor also reduces the impact of the photovoltaic
system on the DF. So the calculated Pav is multiplied with the FRI value of the respective tariffs.
The result is the “Reduction of DF” which is the actual reduction of the charged electricity
demand of the company due to the impact of the photovoltaic system. Table 34 shows the
applied FRI values.
Table 34: Applied FRI values
Tariffs FRI
H-M, H-MC: 0.3
H-S, H-SL: 0.2
H-T, H-TL: 0.1
Source: Own display
54
Identification and description of market niches via cost comparison
6 Identification and description of market niches via cost

comparison
In this chapter the overall costs for purchasing the electricity from the grid are compared to the
costs of the photovoltaic systems. This leads to the identification of market niches for
photovoltaic systems, i.e. the identification in which cities and at which consumption levels the
application of a photovoltaic system is associated with a positive net present value. A further
important step – above all for potential investors – is the estimation of the total size of these
market niches with the ultimate target to come up with an estimation of the overall market
potential, both in terms of capacity (MW p) and in financial terms, i.e. sales potential (USD). The
estimation of the overall market potential for financially feasible grid-connected PV use in the
Mexican household sector (excluding Mexico City due to lacking data) was realised taking the
following steps.
 Step 1: Compilation of consumption ranges in which PV use results financially

feasible, taking the results generated in previous sections for the 28 cities by means of
the underlying excel model.
 Step 2: Calculation of total consumers/ households falling into these niches using
the data provided to Conuee by CFE which provide detailed figures on the number of
households falling into different consumption ranges in the 28 cities.
 Step 3: Estimation of the potential market size in terms of capacity (MW p) for
financially feasible use of grid-connected PV systems in the Mexican household sector.
a) Definition of different consumption groups for each tariff based on the consumption
ranges applying for the respective tariffs and calculation of an average consumption
value for each consumption group.
b) For each tariff, allocation of average PV capacities to each of these consumption
groups by means of the underlying excel model using the partial supply option and
based on the results for a city out of the four cities analysed in each tariff with a
relatively high solar radiation and assuming the average consumption values. A
comparatively high radiation was chosen in order to come up with a conservative
estimation since a relatively low radiation would have led to above average PV
system capacities.
c) Sum-up of the number of potential households of each consumption range and
multiplying them with the with the respective average PV capacities leading to the
total capacity which results financially feasible for each of these consumption groups.
d) Sum-up of the amounts of financially feasible capacities of the different consumption
groups in order to come up with the total potential market size in MW p regarding the
28 cities that were analysed.
 Step 4: Estimation of the potential market size in financial terms by simply multiplying
the market potential in MW p with the respective prices that were assumed for the different
scenarios
The first part of this chapter is dedicated to the residential sector. In the second part the impact
of the photovoltaic systems in the industry and services sectors is shown.
55
6.1 Residential Sector

6.1.1 Scenario 1: Current niches
This scenario is the most important one as it reflects the actual market situation which was the
main purpose of the present study. Unlike Scenario 2 and 3 whose prices are based on
assumptions the data of Scenario 1 has been verified by a market survey.
Table 35 shows the calculated net present values of the system costs and the tariffs. The
columns “Costs as net present value” show the overall costs the household encounters with the
photovoltaic systems for full or partial supply. The difference between the system costs and
“Tariff electricity costs as net present value” are shown in the respective column “Cost
difference” for both system designs. If this difference of the net present values is negative it
means that no costs can be saved by a photovoltaic system application compared to purchasing
the total electricity from the grid. If one of the two options shows a positive difference the column
“Cost saving” displays “yes”.
Regarding the results presented by Table 35 it can be observed that:
 The application of photovoltaic systems for full supply is in not cost-saving in any case
and for no tariff.
 The latter fact means that the generation costs of all photovoltaic systems regarded by
the model are never lower than the net present value of the tariff per kilowatt-hour (this
term is explained below) paid during the 20 years period. Otherwise the systems for full
supply would be cost-saving too.
 Mainly in the Tariffs 1 – 1B photovoltaic systems for partial supply for the two highest
assumed consumption volumes are cost-saving.
56
Table 35: Scenario 1 - Cost comparison residential sector
Full electricity Partial electricity supply

Tariff supply PV option PV option
electricity
Consumption Costs as Costs as Cost
Tariff City costs as net Cost Cost
net present net present saving
present value difference difference
value value
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
140 36,532 106,328 -69,796 0 No
249 102,792 202,918 -100,126 131,887 -29,095 No
Durango
250 175,634 203,804 -28,170 133,133 42,502 Yes
300 207,521 248,111 -40,590 154,405 53,116 Yes
140 36,532 113,983 -77,451 0 No
249 102,792 217,828 -115,036 136,178 -33,386 No
Oaxaca
250 178,544 218,781 -40,237 137,240 41,303 Yes
300 211,013 266,416 -55,404 189,313 21,700 Yes
140 36,532 109,070 -72,538 0 No
249 102,792 208,258 -105,466 136,015 -33,223 No
1 Guadalajara
250 175,634 209,168 -33,534 137,076 38,558 Yes
300 207,521 254,668 -47,146 174,845 32,677 Yes
140 36,532 110,981 -74,449 0 No
249 102,792 211,982 -109,189 133,407 -30,615 No
Puebla
250 178,544 212,908 -34,364 134,460 44,083 Yes
300 211,013 259,238 -48,226 187,957 23,056 Yes
140 36,532 123,284 -86,752 0 No
Distrito 249 102,792 235,944 -133,152 146,077 -43,285 No
Federal 250 191,320 236,978 -45,658 147,183 44,137 Yes
300 226,345 288,657 -62,312 193,381 32,964 Yes
150 34,640 142,753 -108,113 0 No
299 125,215 307,977 -182,762 201,685 -76,469 No
Cuautla
300 211,013 309,086 -98,074 202,830 8,182 Yes
360 249,976 375,620 -125,644 232,992 16,984 Yes
150 34,640 136,027 -101,387 0 No
299 125,215 293,233 -168,018 192,204 -66,989 No
Tepic
300 207,521 294,288 -86,767 193,320 14,202 Yes
360 245,786 357,593 -111,807 222,645 23,142 Yes
1A
150 34,622 130,298 -95,676 0 No
299 125,198 280,677 -155,479 186,097 -60,899 No
Nogales
300 207,521 281,686 -74,164 187,231 20,290 Yes
360 245,786 342,241 -96,455 218,410 27,376 Yes
150 34,640 129,715 -95,076 0 No
299 125,215 279,399 -154,184 185,360 -60,145 No
Los Tuxtlas
300 211,013 280,403 -69,391 186,473 24,540 Yes
360 249,976 340,679 -90,703 226,682 23,294 Yes
57

electricity
Tariff City costs as net Cost Cost saving
present value net present difference net present difference
value value
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
200 50,598 155,327 -104,730 0 No
399 171,520 327,247 -155,727 212,832 -41,313 No
Chihuahua
400 273,642 328,110 -54,469 213,841 59,801 Yes
528 356,683 438,692 -82,009 323,479 33,204 Yes
200 50,584 173,718 -123,134 0 No
399 171,554 366,550 -194,996 231,550 -59,996 No
Acapulco
400 275,951 367,519 -91,568 232,595 43,356 Yes
528 359,098 491,552 -132,453 343,628 15,471 Yes
1B
200 50,584 187,695 -137,111 0 No
399 171,554 396,420 -224,866 231,726 -60,172 No
Poza Rica
400 272,492 397,469 -124,977 232,847 39,645 Yes
528 354,391 531,725 -177,334 334,946 19,445 Yes
200 50,584 171,237 -120,653 0 No
399 171,554 361,247 -189,693 221,412 -49,858 No
Riviera Maya
400 275,951 362,202 -86,251 222,474 53,477 Yes
528 359,098 484,419 -125,321 325,745 33,354 Yes
238 53,492 221,972 -168,480 0 No
849 396,572 848,812 -452,240 618,226 -221,654 No
Cd. Juárez
850 548,721 849,837 -301,116 619,344 -70,623 No
1,067 684,343 1,072,280 -387,938 693,694 -9,352 No
238 53,492 254,626 -201,134 0 No
849 396,572 975,432 -578,860 686,613 -290,041 No
Monterrey
850 558,281 976,610 -418,330 687,787 -129,507 No
1,067 697,434 1,232,399 -534,965 738,679 -41,245 No
1C
238 53,465 245,400 -191,936 0 No
849 396,748 939,657 -542,909 714,482 -317,734 No
Tampico
850 558,281 940,792 -382,511 715,629 -157,349 No
1,067 696,729 1,187,159 -490,430 731,646 -34,917 No
238 53,465 236,830 -183,365 0 No
849 396,748 906,423 -509,676 653,686 -256,938 No
Mérida
850 568,173 907,518 -339,345 654,823 -86,650 No
1,067 709,142 1,145,134 -435,991 701,107 8,035 Yes
58

electricity
value value
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
300 67,582 292,706 -225,123 0 No
999 454,271 1,026,182 -571,910 760,889 -306,618 No
Mazatlán
1,000 671,468 1,027,231 -355,763 761,983 -90,515 No
1,320 882,121 1,363,014 -480,893 925,839 -43,719 No
300 67,582 250,824 -183,242 0 No
999 454,271 877,845 -423,574 651,796 -197,525 No
La Paz
1,000 681,105 878,742 -197,637 652,201 28,904 Yes
1,320 904,223 1,165,790 -261,567 872,960 31,262 Yes
1D
300 67,582 276,128 -208,546 0 No
999 454,271 967,466 -513,195 663,358 -209,087 No
Matamoros
1,000 653,942 968,455 -314,513 664,468 -10,526 No
1,320 858,964 1,284,948 -425,984 853,596 5,368 Yes
300 67,527 257,782 -190,255 0 No
999 454,520 902,487 -447,968 676,727 -222,208 No
Cd. Altamirano
1,000 665,580 903,410 -237,830 677,133 -11,553 No
1,320 873,449 1,198,554 -325,105 862,059 11,390 Yes
500 104,137 508,608 -404,472 0 No
1,999 984,503 2,101,773 -1,117,270 1,551,667 -567,164 No
Culiacán
2,000 1,326,738 2,102,836 -776,098 1,552,787 -226,048 No
2,640 1,748,043 2,783,040 -1,034,997 1,884,393 -136,350 No
500 104,137 409,170 -305,034 0 No
1999 984,503 1,688,530 -704,027 1,332,252 -347,748 No
Guaymas
2,000 1,326,738 1,689,384 -362,646 1,333,253 -6,515 No
2,640 1,748,043 2,235,608 -487,565 1,726,291 21,752 Yes
1E
500 104,137 543,709 -439,572 0 No
1,999 984,503 2,247,645 -1,263,141 1,542,235 -557,732 No
Reynosa
2,000 1,291,686 2,248,781 -957,095 1,543,398 -251,712 No
2,640 1,701,730 2,976,279 -1,274,549 1,838,492 -136,762 No
500 104,137 544,801 -440,664 0 No
Piedras 1999 984,503 2,252,182 -1,267,678 1,590,904 -606,401 No
Negras 2,000 1,291,686 2,253,321 -961,635 1,592,072 -300,385 No
2,640 1,701,730 2,982,289 -1,280,559 1,896,838 -195,108 No
59

electricity
value value
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
725 150,215 661,625 -511,411 0 No
2,499 1,080,370 2,328,820 -1,248,450 1,612,093 -531,723 No
Mexicali
2,750 1,243,435 2,564,709 -1,321,273 1,917,148 -673,712 No
870 211,323 797,896 -586,572 313,467 -102,144 No
725 150,215 714,065 -563,850 0 No
San Luis Rio 2499 1,080,370 2,514,156 -1,433,785 1,648,057 -567,686 No
Colorado 2,750 1,329,110 2,768,847 -1,439,737 1,966,941 -637,831 No
870 211,323 861,197 -649,874 314,881 -103,558 No
1F
725 150,215 661,426 -511,212 0 No
2,499 1,080,370 2,328,117 -1,247,747 1,596,660 -516,290 No
Cd. Obregón
2,750 1,329,110 2,563,934 -1,234,824 1,873,307 -544,197 No
870 211,323 797,655 -586,332 309,707 -98,384 No
725 150,215 605,212 -454,997 0 No
2499 1,080,370 2,129,438 -1,049,068 1,536,346 -455,976 No
Hermosillo
2,750 1,329,110 2,345,098 -1,015,988 1,812,457 -483,347 No
870 211,323 729,796 -518,473 298,479 -87,156 No
Source: Own display
If the generation costs of the photovoltaic systems are always higher than the tariff the question
occurs:
Why are systems for partial supply cost-saving in some cases?
To give an accurate answer some more specific data has to be regarded. The first one are the
generation costs of the photovoltaic system which are calculated by dividing the overall cost as
net present value for the system by the amount of electricity generated by it throughout the 20
years. Figure 9 gives an overview about the generation costs in dependence on the solar
radiation. As can be seen the generation costs differ from about 3.56 up to 4.92 $/kWh. Different
generation costs for equal values of solar radiation as can be observed in Figure 9 result from
differences in high temperature efficiency losses (Lt).
60
Figure 9: Scenario 1 - PV Generation costs residential sector
8.00
PV generation costs [$/kWh]
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50
Radiation [kWh/m2d]
Source: Own display
The second one is the average tariff costs with photovoltaic system paid per kilowatt-hour for the
electricity portion purchased from the grid applying a photovoltaic system for partial electricity
supply. They are calculated in the same way as the generation costs of the photovoltaic system
although their expressiveness is different from them. In contradiction to the generation costs of
the photovoltaic system the real annual tariff to customer is not fix because of the assumed
annual price increase. Nevertheless, here the fictional average tariff cost per kilowatt-hour which
is paid yearly throughout the 20 years is calculated by dividing the calculated overall costs for
electricity from the grid by the amount of electricity bought by it. Further, the same value is
calculated for the reference case (no PV system) which will be called average tariff cost without
PV. The specific data for the 29 cities and their systems are shown in Annex 18.
Consistency of the niches

By regarding the specific data it can be observed that the photovoltaic systems are cost-saving
in the respective cases because the average overall cost for a kilowatt-hour of electricity is lower
than the average tariff cost without PV. The average overall cost for a kilowatt-hour of electricity
of the photovoltaic system is calculated as follows:
co  c g  a pv  t pv  (1  a pv )
co: average overall costs per kilowatt-hour [$/kWh]
apv: PV portion on electricity supply
tpv: average tariff paid for electricity from the grid with PV system [$/kWh]
Thus, although the generation costs of the photovoltaic systems are higher than the average
tariff cost without PV, a system for partial electricity supply can be cost-saving by reducing the
61
demand of electricity from the grid making a lower consumption range apply (and thus a lower
tariff (price to customer)). As can be seen, this effect only appears for a certain level of radiation
and until the photovoltaic system reaches a certain size. If the photovoltaic system’s percentage
at the total electricity supply reaches a critical point increasing investment costs offset the impact
of the tariff drop. This effect is strengthened by the fact that the DAC price paid per kilowatt-hour
is decreasing with higher consumption volumes because of a fix cost included in the DAC which
is independent from the consumption level itself. From this follows that the higher a consumption
volume of a household is above the DAC limit, the cheaper the kilowatt-hour of electricity and
the bigger might have to be the photovoltaic system (higher PV portion) to cause a tariff drop,
thus the possibility of a cost-saving effect is descending fast.
Special features of the results

 What can further be observed in Table 35 is that the cost-saving effect in the cities of
Tariff 1B for the second highest assumed consumption volume (400 kWh/month) is
higher than for 528 kWh monthly whereas for all other tariffs it is the other way round.
The reason for this is the way how the systems have been sized and due to the regarded
consumption levels. As can be seen in Annex 18 the photovoltaic portion of the total
electricity demand of the systems of the highest regarded consumption volume is much
higher in Tariff 1B to Tariff 1F compared with the portions of Tariff 1 to 1A. This is
because the systems of the former are sized regarding the summer months only for
which an additional 20% consumption rise was assumed. So, starting at Tariff 1B the
systems for the highest consumption volumes are getting bigger as they have to provide
more electricity. Starting from Tariff 1B the range limits for summer are also becoming
higher which causes the sizes of the photovoltaic systems for the other two consumption
volumes of these tariffs to rise as well. As the increase in range limit of Tariff 1B is not so
high yet the system sizes for the three different regarded consumption volumes in this
tariff are quite equal (see Annex 12). On the other side the tariff drop is much higher in
the second highest regarded consumption volume as here the price drops from the DAC
to the prices of the lowest consumption range (> 225 kWh/month) of Tariff 1B which
causes this system to be more cost-saving.
This explains also why in Tariff 1C to 1E the systems for the second highest regarded
consumption volume are not cost-saving but in the case of the city of La Paz (due to its
very high radiation). As has been said before, the rising range limits causes the systems
for the second highest consumption volumes to rise in size in to order to be able to cause
a tariff drop. An increase of the systems portion at the electricity demand offsets the
effect of the tariff drop. One could wonder that this only happens because the study only
regards the highest end of the consumption ranges as consumption volumes so if the
regarded consumption volume were lower, the portion of the photovoltaic system would
be smaller and thus it could be cost-saving. Here it must be said that the price drop
would also be lower which obviously eases the impact on the photovoltaic system thus
there can be a cost-saving effect of such a system but only for a consumption volume
very close to the lower end of the consumption range. The issue is made clearer by the
example showed below. The example makes clear that these “niches” are of no real
relevance even more as Guaymas is a city featuring excellent conditions for the
application of photovoltaic systems.
62
Tariff 1E (consumption range limit, summer: 750 kWh/month)

City: Guaymas
Considered average consumptions: 1) 760 kWh/month
2) 765 kWh/month
1. Result: Cost-saving for 760 kWh/month; Cost-saving effect in 20 years period: 128 $
2. Result: Not cost-saving for 765 kWh/month
 Regarding the results for Tariff 1C of Table 35 it seems to be confusing that the system
for 1067 kWh/month in Mérida saves costs whereas in Juárez not although the latter
features a higher solar radiation and a lower DAC (see Annex 1). The reason is that due
to the way how the systems have been sized and due to the course of the radiation of the
two cities the household with the photovoltaic system in Juárez has to buy a little bit more
of electricity from the grid during winter than the one in Mérida. As the electricity prices
are higher during winter the average cost per kilowatt-hour with PV is higher in Juárez
than in Mérida.
 Although the cities regarded in Tariff 1F feature very high solar radiations and thus very
low photovoltaic generation costs none of the considered systems is cost-saving. This is
due to what has been said before about Tariff 1F. Resulting from the fact that the DAC
only applies during winter for this tariff the average tariff costs without PV per kilowatt-
hour are lower than in all other tariffs (see Annex 18). Photovoltaic systems are thus
under no circumstances cost-saving.
Learnings and conclusion

General learnings:
 From what has been said so far it is clear that the generation costs of a photovoltaic
system first mainly depend on the radiation and on its course over the year.
 Furthermore, the location due to the efficiency loss factor applied in the model also has
an impact.
 If a system for partial supply is cost-saving or not depends on the applying tariff and the
regarded consumption. Obviously the results depend to a certain extent on the way the
photovoltaic systems were calculated and sized.
Identified market niches:
 Because of all the broad variety of variables influencing in the cost analysis it is difficult to
make a specific statement in which case PV systems are cost-saving. Rather each case
must be considered individually which is why the model providing all the data this study is
based on offers a tool providing the possibility to analyse your specific case if the use of a
photovoltaic system would be cost-saving or not (www.conuee.gob.mx).
 In general it can be said that at present generation costs of photovoltaic systems for the
residential sector are still much higher than the tariffs applying for electricity purchased
from the grid in Mexico.
63
 Nevertheless, there exist some niches for a cost-saving application of photovoltaic

systems in the consumption range of the DAC. Households featuring a consumption
slightly above the DAC limit pose the most promising case for a photovoltaic application
in this scenario. These niches in general exist in all tariffs but 1F and for regions featuring
a radiation of about the national average and higher.
Size of market niches:
 Out of the universe of the 29 cities analysed, for DAC consumers in the following cities
PV use should be cost-saving:
Table 36: Market niches by city in the residential sector (micro-approach)

DAC below DAC DAC below DAC DAC below DAC
Durango X X X X X
Oaxaca X X X X X
Tariff 1 Guadalajara X X X X X
Puebla X X X X X
Distrito Federal X X X X X
Cuautla X X X X
Tepic X X X X X
Tariff 1A
Nogales X X X X X
Chihuahua X X X X X
Acapulco X X X X X
Tariff 1B
Poza Rica X X X X X
Cd. Juárez X X X
Monterrey X X X
Tariff 1C
Tampico X X X
Mérida X X X X
Mazatlán X X X
La Paz X X X X X
Tariff 1D
Matamoros X X X X X
Culiacán X X X
Guaymas X X X X X
Tariff 1E
Reynosa X X X
Mexicali X X
Tariff 1F
Cd. Obregón X X
Hermosillo X X
Source: Own display
64
 The niche described in this scenario is quite limited and applies only to about 2% of the
28 households analysed (the Distrito Federal is not included). These results as well as
the results for scenario 2 and 3 are shown in Table 37.
Potential Range of
capacity PV size
Scenario "Top 5"
2 Chihuahua 9 14,941 67
Total "Top 5" 54 89,622 403
Total 28 Cities 81 133,499 608
2%
1 Guadalajara 174 388,224 1,302 0.1 - 1.3
2 Cuautla 52 73,297 392 0.6 - 1.9
Outlook" 5 Puebla 41 89,854 306 0.1 - 1.3
Total "Top 5" 362 659,471 2,708
Total 28 Cities 693 956,629 5,190
17%
1 Guadalajara 174 388,224 814 0.1 - 1.3
2 Mexicali 141 44,606 659 0.2 - 15.5
outlook" 5 Tampico 66 55,366 307 0.1 - 3.7
Total "Top 5" 593 684,372 2,774
Total 28 Cities 1,336 1,486,362 6,255
27%
Source: Own display
65
6.1.2 Scenario 2: Conservative outlook

This scenario serves as a conservative outlook on the development of the generation costs in
the coming five to six years. It considers a decrease of 20% of photovoltaic system prices and
thus is more conservative than the expectations quoted by photovoltaic producers for that
period. Table 38 shows the calculated net present values of the system costs and the tariffs and
the differences between them. Annex 19 provides the key data for this scenario.

In Scenario 2 photovoltaic systems for full electricity supply turn out to be cost-saving in all cities
for the DAC consumption range, but Mexicali, San Luis Rio Colorado and Cd. Obregón, which
means that the net present value of their generation costs are lower than the respective average
tariff costs without PV per kilowatt-hour. For very high radiations, for example Guaymas, this
even happens in the consumption range of the tariff next below the DAC limit. According to this
fact, the cost difference relative to the radiation increases following the tariffs from 1 to 1E as the
regarded consumption volumes increase and thus the saving effect. This happens although it
can be observed that the average DAC price paid per kilowatt-hour throughout the 20 year
period is lower (see Annex 19) in Tariff 1B to 1F than in Tariff 1 and 1A due to the assumed
20% increase of consumption during the summer period for the former tariffs. For radiations of
about the Mexican average and higher systems for partial supply are even cost-saving in the
consumption range next below the DAC. In general it can be recorded that systems for partial
supply for the second highest considered consumption volume save the highest amount of costs
as the reduction of the tariff (price to customer) is strongest in this range.
66

electricity
value value
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
140 53,678 88,022 -34,345 0 No
249 151,035 165,294 -14,259 127,608 23,427 Yes
Durango
250 258,064 166,003 92,061 129,439 128,626 Yes
300 304,917 201,448 103,469 183,002 121,915 Yes
140 53,678 94,146 -40,469 0 No
249 151,035 177,222 -26,187 131,683 19,352 Yes
Oaxaca
250 262,339 177,984 84,355 132,500 129,839 Yes
300 310,047 216,093 93,954 246,934 63,113 Yes
140 53,678 90,216 -36,538 0 No
249 151,035 169,566 -18,531 129,957 21,079 Yes
1 Guadalajara
250 258,064 170,294 87,770 130,772 127,293 Yes
300 304,917 206,694 98,223 224,188 80,729 Yes
140 53,678 91,745 -38,067 0 No
249 151,035 172,545 -21,510 129,842 21,193 Yes
Puebla
250 262,339 173,286 89,053 130,646 131,693 Yes
300 310,047 210,350 99,697 245,684 64,363 Yes
140 53,678 101,587 -47,909 0 No
Distrito 249 151,035 191,715 -40,680 138,793 12,243 Yes
Federal 250 281,112 192,542 88,570 139,674 141,439 Yes
300 332,574 233,885 98,689 249,193 83,382 Yes
150 50,897 116,975 -66,078 0 No
299 183,982 249,154 -65,172 187,038 -3,056 No
Cuautla
300 310,047 250,041 60,006 187,978 122,069 Yes
360 367,296 303,268 64,028 298,472 68,825 Yes
150 50,897 111,594 -60,697 0 No
299 183,982 237,359 -53,377 176,826 7,156 Yes
Tepic
300 304,917 238,203 66,714 177,721 127,196 Yes
360 361,140 288,847 72,294 284,012 77,129 Yes
1A
150 50,872 107,011 -56,139 0 No
299 183,957 227,314 -43,357 176,031 7,926 Yes
Nogales
300 304,917 228,121 76,796 176,954 127,963 Yes
360 361,140 276,565 84,575 281,507 79,633 Yes
150 50,897 106,545 -55,648 0 No
299 183,982 226,291 -42,309 174,949 9,033 Yes
Los Tuxtlas
300 310,047 227,095 82,952 175,840 134,207 Yes
360 367,296 275,315 91,981 293,661 73,635 Yes
67

electricity
value value
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
200 74,345 127,034 -52,690 0 No
399 252,018 264,570 -12,551 219,776 32,243 Yes
Chihuahua
400 402,070 265,261 136,809 220,514 181,555 Yes
528 524,084 353,726 170,358 381,608 142,476 Yes
200 74,324 141,747 -67,422 0 No
399 252,069 296,012 -43,943 227,945 24,124 Yes
Acapulco
400 405,463 296,787 108,675 228,737 176,725 Yes
528 527,633 396,014 131,620 391,138 136,496 Yes
1B
200 74,324 152,928 -78,604 0 No
399 252,069 319,908 -67,839 238,615 13,454 Yes
Poza Rica
400 400,380 320,747 79,632 239,517 160,863 Yes
528 520,717 428,152 92,565 388,791 131,925 Yes
200 74,324 139,762 -65,437 0 No
399 252,069 291,770 -39,701 226,433 25,636 Yes
Riviera Maya
400 405,463 292,534 112,929 227,251 178,212 Yes
528 527,633 390,308 137,325 378,246 149,388 Yes
238 78,598 180,350 -101,753 0 No
849 582,694 681,822 -99,128 587,903 -5,210 No
Cd. Juárez
850 806,251 682,642 123,609 588,803 217,448 Yes
1,067 1,005,524 860,597 144,927 835,606 169,918 Yes
238 78,598 206,473 -127,876 0 No
849 582,694 783,118 -200,424 643,773 -61,079 No
Monterrey
850 820,297 784,061 36,237 644,755 175,543 Yes
1,067 1,024,759 988,691 36,068 876,422 148,337 Yes
1C
238 78,557 199,093 -120,535 0 No
849 582,952 754,498 -171,545 659,441 -76,488 No
Tampico
850 820,297 755,406 64,891 660,383 159,915 Yes
1,067 1,023,724 952,500 71,224 851,217 172,506 Yes
238 78,557 192,236 -113,679 0 No
849 582,952 727,911 -144,959 612,494 -29,542 No
Mérida
850 834,832 728,787 106,045 613,421 221,411 Yes
1,067 1,041,963 918,879 123,083 830,883 211,080 Yes
68

electricity
value value
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
300 99,300 236,937 -137,637 0 No
999 667,473 823,718 -156,244 694,168 -26,695 No
Mazatlán
1,000 986,607 824,557 162,050 695,032 291,575 Yes
1,320 1,296,125 1,093,183 202,941 1,048,811 247,314 Yes
300 99,300 203,432 -104,131 0 No
999 667,473 705,048 -37,575 621,614 45,859 Yes
La Paz
1,000 1,000,767 705,766 295,001 622,210 378,557 Yes
1,320 1,328,600 935,404 393,195 1,035,804 292,796 Yes
1D
300 99,300 223,675 -124,374 0 No
999 667,473 776,745 -109,272 661,653 5,820 Yes
Matamoros
1,000 960,856 777,537 183,319 662,540 298,315 Yes
1,320 1,262,100 1,030,731 231,370 1,023,710 238,391 Yes
300 99,219 208,998 -109,779 0 No
999 667,838 724,762 -56,924 635,196 32,642 Yes
Cd. Altamirano
1,000 977,956 725,500 252,455 635,793 342,163 Yes
1,320 1,283,383 961,616 321,767 1,002,685 280,698 Yes
500 153,011 409,410 -256,399 0 No
1,999 1,446,558 1,683,942 -237,383 1,450,098 -3,540 No
Culiacán
2,000 1,949,414 1,684,792 264,622 1,450,999 498,415 Yes
2,640 2,568,449 2,228,955 339,494 2,184,355 384,094 Yes
500 153,011 329,859 -176,849 0 No
1999 1,446,558 1,353,347 93,211 1,236,264 210,295 Yes
Guaymas
2,000 1,949,414 1,354,030 595,384 1,236,992 712,422 Yes
2,640 2,568,449 1,791,009 777,439 2,027,894 540,555 Yes
1E
500 153,011 437,490 -284,479 0 No
1,999 1,446,558 1,800,639 -354,080 1,494,980 -48,422 No
Reynosa
2,000 1,897,911 1,801,548 96,363 1,495,946 401,965 Yes
2,640 2,500,400 2,383,546 116,854 2,157,807 342,593 Yes
500 153,011 438,364 -285,353 0 No
Piedras 1999 1,446,558 1,804,268 -357,710 1,522,621 -76,062 No
Negras 2,000 1,897,911 1,805,180 92,731 1,523,593 374,318 Yes
2,640 2,500,400 2,388,355 112,045 2,213,051 287,349 Yes
69

electricity
value value
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
725 220,715 531,823 -311,109 0 No
2,499 1,587,419 1,865,579 -278,161 1,643,725 -56,306 No
Mexicali
2,750 1,827,014 2,054,290 -227,276 1,812,372 14,642 Yes
870 310,503 640,839 -330,336 326,003 -15,499 No
725 220,715 573,775 -353,060 0 No
San Luis Rio 2499 1,587,419 2,013,848 -426,429 1,709,952 -122,533 No
Colorado 2,750 1,952,899 2,217,601 -264,702 1,904,124 48,775 Yes
870 310,503 691,481 -380,978 331,054 -20,551 No
1F
725 220,715 531,664 -310,949 0 No
2,499 1,587,419 1,865,017 -277,598 1,641,868 -54,450 No
Cd. Obregón
2,750 1,952,899 2,053,670 -100,771 1,802,980 149,919 Yes
870 310,503 640,647 -330,144 327,913 -17,410 No
725 220,715 486,692 -265,978 0 No
2499 1,587,419 1,706,074 -118,655 1,581,502 5,916 Yes
Hermosillo
2,750 1,952,899 1,878,602 74,297 1,726,211 226,688 Yes
870 310,503 586,360 -275,857 313,646 -3,143 No
Source: Own display
70
The PV generation costs are shown in Figure 10. As can be seen the PV generation costs of
this scenario range from 2.85 up to 3.94 $/kWh. The former represents the generation cost of
Guaymas and is 30% lower than the respective average tariff cost without PV per kilowatt-hour.
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50
Radiation [kWh/m2d]
Source: Own display

General learnings:
 The scenario shows that it is quite probable that in about five years the generation costs
per kilowatt-hour of photovoltaic systems can be lower for consumption levels close to the
DAC limits (below or above) than the tariff costs without PV per kilowatt-hour.
 As a result significant market and cost-saving opportunities for PV applications for a
range of different consumption levels exist.
 Furthermore, from a financial point of view the most attractive niche exists for households
featuring a consumption volume above the DAC limit.
 The fact that no DAC applies during summer in Tariff 1F poses a barrier to the application
of photovoltaic in some of Mexico’s sun riches regions.
 The second scenario shows that nearly for all households paying the DAC both
photovoltaic options are cost-saving. That systems save costs supplying the total
electricity demand of a household shows that the average generation costs per kilowatt-
hour over the 20 years period of the systems are lower than the average DAC paid over
the same period in this scenario.
 In the consumption range of the DAC photovoltaic systems are cost-saving in all tariffs
but 1F.
71
 In all tariffs but 1F it is possible to save costs in the consumption range next below the
DAC depending on the radiation and the substructure of the respective tariff due to the
effect of a drop from the highest tariff to a lower one, as has been explained above. For
radiations above 5 kWh/m2/d photovoltaic options save costs against the tariff of the
consumption range next below the DAC. The only exception is Tariff 1F as no DAC
applies for it during summer.
 For Tariff 1F photovoltaic applications can only save costs by a tariff drop for the highest
considered consumption volumes.
 Out of the universe of the 29 cities analysed, the mentioned niches exist in the cities
shown in Table 36.
 The size of the niches of this scenario is about 17% of the analysed household and is
shown in Table 37.
72
6.1.3 Scenario 3: Optimistic outlook

The price assumption of this scenario is based on the expectations for the next five to seven
years quoted by dealers and manufacturers and should be regarded as quite optimistic. The
assumption is a decrease of 50% in photovoltaic system prices. The expected price reduction
was justified by dealers and manufacturers with the envisaged elimination of four currently
existing bottlenecks in the supply chain for photovoltaic modules over the next five years.
Bottlenecks currently exist for the availability of silicon and cells, the encapsulation of cells,
plastic films and for glass.
Table 39 shows the calculated net present values of the system costs and the tariffs and the
differences between them. The key data for his scenario can be found in Annex 20.

The table shows that in Scenario 3 in Tariff 1 to 1E the generation costs of the systems are even
lower than the average tariff costs without PV in the consumption range below the DAC. This
can be seen due to the fact that the full supply option in these cases is cost-saving against the
tariffs. But still in Tariff 1F the fact that no DAC exist during summer shows its impact. In this
tariff the generation costs are below the average tariff costs without PV of the DAC but they are
still higher than the average tariff costs without PV of the consumption range next below the
DAC. The lowest generation costs features the city of Guaymas. They are about 41% lower than
the average tariff cost without PV of the highest consumption range of the Tariff 1E (see Annex
20). So, in this city for the full supply option in the DAC consumption range the net present value
of the photovoltaic system costs would be about 1,122,000 $ including operation and
maintenance costs (O&M) whereas the cost-saving effect would be a net present value of about
1,446,000 $ (see Table 39).
73

electricity
value value
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
140 53,678 57,450 -3,773 0 No
249 151,035 105,745 45,290 97,947 53,088 Yes
Durango
250 258,064 106,188 151,876 99,778 158,287 Yes
300 304,917 128,342 176,575 163,339 141,578 Yes
140 53,678 61,278 -7,600 0 No
249 151,035 113,200 37,835 101,022 50,013 Yes
Oaxaca
250 262,339 113,677 148,663 101,506 160,833 Yes
300 310,047 137,494 172,553 232,937 77,111 Yes
140 53,678 58,821 -5,144 0 No
249 151,035 108,415 42,620 98,629 52,406 Yes
1 Guadalajara
250 258,064 108,870 149,194 99,111 158,953 Yes
300 304,917 131,620 173,297 209,524 95,393 Yes
140 53,678 59,777 -6,099 0 No
249 151,035 110,277 40,758 100,181 50,854 Yes
Puebla
250 262,339 110,740 151,599 100,652 161,687 Yes
300 310,047 133,905 176,142 232,020 78,027 Yes
140 53,678 65,928 -12,251 0 No
Distrito 249 151,035 122,258 28,777 104,799 46,236 Yes
Federal 250 281,112 122,775 158,337 105,347 175,765 Yes
300 332,574 148,615 183,960 233,529 99,045 Yes
150 50,897 75,391 -24,494 0 No
299 183,982 158,004 25,979 138,047 45,935 Yes
Cuautla
300 310,047 158,558 151,489 138,654 171,393 Yes
360 367,296 191,825 175,472 278,809 88,488 Yes
150 50,897 72,028 -21,131 0 No
299 183,982 150,632 33,351 129,502 54,481 Yes
Tepic
300 304,917 151,159 153,758 130,064 174,853 Yes
360 361,140 182,811 178,329 264,682 96,459 Yes
1A
150 50,872 69,164 -18,292 0 No
299 183,957 144,353 39,604 132,373 51,584 Yes
Nogales
300 304,917 144,858 160,059 132,962 171,955 Yes
360 361,140 175,135 186,005 263,844 97,296 Yes
150 50,897 68,873 -17,976 0 No
299 183,982 143,714 40,268 131,291 52,692 Yes
Los Tuxtlas
300 310,047 144,217 165,830 131,849 178,198 Yes
360 367,296 174,354 192,942 275,998 91,299 Yes
74

electricity
value value
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
200 74,345 81,679 -7,334 0 No
399 252,018 167,638 84,380 178,117 73,901 Yes
Chihuahua
400 402,070 168,070 233,999 178,522 223,547 Yes
528 524,084 223,361 300,723 339,616 184,468 Yes
200 74,324 90,874 -16,550 0 No
399 252,069 187,290 64,779 177,622 74,448 Yes
Acapulco
400 405,463 187,774 217,688 178,080 227,382 Yes
528 527,633 249,791 277,843 340,147 187,486 Yes
1B
200 74,324 97,862 -23,538 0 No
399 252,069 202,225 49,844 192,957 59,113 Yes
Poza Rica
400 400,380 202,749 197,630 193,526 206,854 Yes
528 520,717 269,877 250,839 342,467 178,250 Yes
200 74,324 89,633 -15,309 0 No
399 252,069 184,638 67,431 182,108 69,961 Yes
Riviera Maya
400 405,463 185,116 220,347 182,592 222,870 Yes
528 527,633 246,225 281,409 333,254 194,379 Yes
238 78,598 115,001 -36,404 0 No
849 582,694 428,421 154,273 444,264 138,430 Yes
Cd. Juárez
850 806,251 428,933 377,317 444,830 361,421 Yes
1,067 1,005,524 540,155 465,369 753,288 252,236 Yes
238 78,598 131,328 -52,730 0 No
849 582,694 491,731 90,963 480,137 102,557 Yes
Monterrey
850 820,297 492,320 327,977 480,786 339,512 Yes
1,067 1,024,759 620,214 404,545 782,773 241,986 Yes
1C
238 78,557 126,715 -48,158 0 No
849 582,952 473,843 109,109 484,474 98,479 Yes
Tampico
850 820,297 474,411 345,886 485,083 335,215 Yes
1,067 1,023,724 597,595 426,129 750,903 272,821 Yes
238 78,557 122,430 -43,873 0 No
849 582,952 457,227 125,726 456,523 126,429 Yes
Mérida
850 834,832 457,774 377,058 457,117 377,715 Yes
1,067 1,041,963 576,582 465,381 741,567 300,396 Yes
75

electricity
value value
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
300 99,300 150,368 -51,068 0 No
999 667,473 517,106 150,368 504,204 163,270 Yes
Mazatlán
1,000 986,607 517,630 468,977 504,735 481,872 Yes
1,320 1,296,125 685,522 610,603 909,171 386,954 Yes
300 99,300 129,427 -30,127 0 No
999 667,473 442,937 224,536 470,976 196,498 Yes
La Paz
1,000 1,000,767 443,386 557,381 471,572 529,195 Yes
1,320 1,328,600 586,910 741,690 925,158 403,441 Yes
1D
300 99,300 142,079 -42,779 0 No
999 667,473 487,748 179,725 521,346 146,127 Yes
Matamoros
1,000 960,856 488,243 472,613 521,900 438,955 Yes
1,320 1,262,100 646,489 615,611 920,396 341,704 Yes
300 99,219 132,906 -33,687 0 No
999 667,838 455,259 212,580 474,226 193,612 Yes
Cd. Altamirano
1,000 977,956 455,720 522,236 474,823 503,132 Yes
1,320 1,283,383 603,292 680,091 884,374 399,009 Yes
500 153,011 257,958 -104,947 0 No
1,999 1,446,558 1,054,541 392,018 1,078,168 368,390 Yes
Culiacán
2,000 1,949,414 1,055,072 894,342 1,078,736 870,678 Yes
2,640 2,568,449 1,395,174 1,173,275 1,922,404 646,045 Yes
500 153,011 208,239 -55,228 0 No
1999 1,446,558 847,919 598,640 912,992 533,567 Yes
Guaymas
2,000 1,949,414 848,346 1,101,068 913,386 1,036,027 Yes
2,640 2,568,449 1,121,458 1,446,991 1,799,937 768,512 Yes
1E
500 153,011 275,508 -122,498 0 No
1,999 1,446,558 1,127,476 319,082 1,149,379 297,180 Yes
Reynosa
2,000 1,897,911 1,128,044 769,866 1,150,011 747,900 Yes
2,640 2,500,400 1,491,793 1,008,607 1,914,186 586,214 Yes
500 153,011 276,054 -123,043 0 No
Piedras 1999 1,446,558 1,129,745 316,814 1,157,356 289,202 Yes
Negras 2,000 1,897,911 1,130,314 767,597 1,157,995 739,916 Yes
2,640 2,500,400 1,494,799 1,005,601 1,955,766 544,634 Yes
76

electricity
value value
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
725 220,715 334,466 -113,752 0 No
2,499 1,587,419 1,168,064 419,355 1,318,786 268,632 Yes
Mexicali
2,750 1,827,014 1,286,008 541,006 1,362,124 464,890 Yes
870 310,503 402,602 -92,098 265,681 44,822 Yes
725 220,715 360,686 -139,971 0 No
San Luis Rio 2499 1,587,419 1,260,732 326,687 1,391,012 196,407 Yes
Colorado 2,750 1,952,899 1,388,078 564,821 1,462,208 490,691 Yes
870 310,503 434,252 -123,749 272,065 38,438 Yes
1F
725 220,715 334,367 -113,652 0 No
2,499 1,587,419 1,167,712 419,706 1,326,261 261,157 Yes
Cd. Obregón
2,750 1,952,899 1,285,621 667,278 1,377,393 575,506 Yes
870 310,503 402,481 -91,978 270,924 39,579 Yes
725 220,715 306,260 -85,545 0 No
2499 1,587,419 1,068,373 519,046 1,278,560 308,859 Yes
Hermosillo
2,750 1,952,899 1,176,203 776,696 1,306,290 646,609 Yes
870 310,503 368,552 -58,049 257,657 52,846 Yes
Source: Own display
77
An overview about the generation costs of photovoltaic systems in this scenario shows Figure
11. In this scenario the generation costs of the photovoltaic systems range from about 1.78 to
2.46 $/kWh.
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50
Radiation [kWh/m2d]
Source: Own display

General learnings:
 Scenario 3 shows a very high potential for cost reductions by the use of photovoltaic
systems for all residential tariffs. Here cost-saving applications in the consumption ranges
next below the DAC are possible in all regions.
 The scenario clearly shows that by halving the prices of photovoltaic modules the
systems would become cost-saving for all consumption volumes exceeding the basic
consumption range.
 As a result strong market niches exist for consumers of higher volumes. Only in the
lowest consumption range of the tariffs the photovoltaic generation costs are still more
expensive.
 The fact that no DAC applies during summer in Tariff 1F poses a barrier to the application
of photovoltaic in some of Mexico’s sun riches regions.
 For all cities considered in the study the possibility exists to save costs in the
consumption range next below the DAC by one or both photovoltaic options. In other
words in all tariffs but 1F the photovoltaic generation costs are even lower than the
average tariff of the consumption range next below the DAC.
 In the consumption range of the DAC photovoltaic systems are cost-saving in all tariffs
but 1F.
78
 In all tariffs but 1F it is possible to save costs in the consumption range next below the
DAC depending on the radiation and the substructure of the respective tariff due to the
effect of a drop from the highest tariff to a lower one, as has been explained above. For
radiations above 5 kWh/m2/d photovoltaic options save costs against the tariff of the
consumption range next below the DAC. The only exception is Tariff 1F as no DAC
applies for it during summer.
 For Tariff 1F photovoltaic applications can only save costs by a tariff drop for the highest
considered consumption volumes.
 All of the cities analysed in the study feature potentials for a cost-saving photovoltaic
application. Out of the universe of the 29 cities analysed, the mentioned niches exist in
the cities shown in Table 36.
 The size of the niches of Scenario 3 sums up to 27% of the analysed household and is
shown in Table 37.
6.1.4 Analysis of the scenarios from a macro-perspective

The analysis performed above showed growing market niches in the residential sector for the
application of photovoltaic systems in the mid-term. Due to the subsidies paid by the Mexican
government an increasing number of grid-connected photovoltaic applications in the residential
sector would have implications beyond the household level. This is because photovoltaic
systems can be designed to cause a tariff drop, lowering the tariff the household has to pay per
kilowatt-hour purchased from the grid. Since a lower tariff means more state subsidies (see
¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.) a wider use of photovoltaic systems in the
residential sector could thus (depending on whether quantity or price effect prevails) lead to an
increase in the total amount of subsidies the Mexican government has to pay.
For this reason it seems necessary to carry out a detailed analysis of options that result
financially attractive from both an investor’s and the government’s perspective. Such an analysis
goes beyond the scope of the present study, since its objective was the identification of market
niches from an investor’s perspective. However, first estimations were realised in order to
provide some initial figures on the change in the size of market niches that would result from two
alternative macro-approaches. These macro-approaches are in financial terms more attractive
from a government’s perspective since they imply lower subsidy-levels compared to the situation
without PV systems and a situation with increasing use of PV systems under the current
electricity tariff structure in Mexico.
79
Table 40 gives a summary of the core assumptions of the micro-approach presented in previous
sections and the macro-approaches analysed in this chapter.
Table 40: Core assumptions of micro- and macro-approaches
Macro-Approach:
Government’s Perspective
Micro-Approach:
Investor’s perspective
“No tariff change” “No subsidies”
(hypothetical) (hypothetical)
PV niches with the PV niches neglecting the PV niches in a market

current electricity tariff subsidy effect resulting free of subsidies with
structure from a possible change to cost-oriented electricity
a lower tariff (tariff drop) tariffs
Source: Own display
 Macro-approach “No tariff change” neglects the possibility of a tariff drop.

In other words the underlying assumption is that a change to a higher subsidised tariff is
not possible. Market niches identified in this way do not cover cases in which the
photovoltaic system turns out financially feasible due to a change to a higher subsidised
and thus cheaper tariff. This macro-approach results much more attractive from a
government’s perspective since it does definitely imply a decreasing level of total
subsidies, as a household investing in a photovoltaic system would remain in the same
tariff while consuming less electricity from the grid. In contrast to the micro-approach, this
approach gives a concrete idea on the size of market niches that purely result from
cheaper electricity provided by photovoltaic generation (compared to the tariff currently
paid by the respective household).
 Macro-approach “No subsidies” assumes cost-oriented electricity tariffs free of
subsidies. Therefore this approach replaces the existing tariffs by a single reference
tariff which is supposed to represent cost covering electricity prices. As such a reference
tariff the respective DAC tariff of the considered region is applied. This approach allows
identifying market niches in a hypothetical world free of subsidies and gives a clearer idea
on the real competitiveness of photovoltaic systems in the Mexican electricity sector.
The objective of these two approaches is to provide initial information necesary to evaluate the
impact of photovoltaic systems from the point of view of the Mexican government. In this sense,
the results presented in this chapter are intended to pose a basis for further analysis on possible
promotion strategies for photovoltaic systems by the Mexican government.
80
6.1.4.1 Determination of market niches from a macro-perspective

Compared to the micro-approach the determination of the size of the market niches for the 28
cities under the two macro-approaches differs only slightly. The determination of market niches
according to the macro-approaches can be divided into the following steps:
 Step 1: Compilation of consumption ranges in which PV use results financially

feasible under the assumption of the respective considered approach.
a) Calculation of the average tariffs of all subconsumption ranges for all different tariffs.
b) Calculation of average tariffs for each consumption volume used in the statistics of
CFE on which the analysis is based (see Table 42). For Macro-approach “No tariff
change” these average tariffs are calculated from the respective average tariffs of the
subconsumption ranges determined in Step 1 a). For Macro-approach “No subsidies”
the average tariffs of the consumption volumes are calculated from the average DAC
tariffs only, due to the underlying assumption that DAC prices apply to all households
independent of their consumption volume.
c) Comparison of the average tariffs of each consumption volume with the average
generation costs of the photovoltaic system. The latter are taken from the calculation
of the Micro-approach, since PV generation costs do not depend on the different
assumptions regarding the tariffs in the different micro- and macro-approaches.
 Step 2: Calculation of total consumers/ households falling into these niches using
the data provided to Conuee by CFE which provide detailed figures on the number of
households falling into the different consumption volumes in the 28 cities.
 Step 3: Estimation of the potential market size in terms of capacity (MW p) for
financially feasible use of grid-connected PV systems in the two macro-approaches.
a) Definition of different consumption groups for each tariff based on the consumption
ranges applying for the respective tariffs and the calculation of an average
consumption volume for each consumption group.
b) For each tariff, allocation of average PV capacities to each of these consumption
groups by means of the underlying excel model using the full supply option and based
on the results for a city out of the four cities analysed in each tariff with a relatively
high solar radiation and assuming the average consumption values. A comparatively
high radiation was chosen in order to come up with a conservative estimation since a
relatively low radiation would have led to above average PV system capacities. The
system capacity resulting from the calculation of the excel model is then reduced by a
factor of 50%43 as it appears too optimistic to assume that all users inside the niche
will install that system size. This factor was chosen randomly in order to adopt again a
rather consverative point of view.
43
In Scenario 3 of Macro-approach “No subsidies” this factor was reduced to 20% as the number of households
inside the niche turn out to be the same for Scenario 2 and 3. Measured in USD this would have resulted in a lower
total niche size of Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 2 which would have been contradictory as the general
conditions appear to be more favourable. This is why the reduction factor was adapted in a way that the total
investment in USD stays the same for Scenario 2 and 3.
81
c) Sum-up of the number of potential households of each consumption group and

multiplication with the respective average PV capacities leading to the total capacity
by city which results financially feasible for each of these consumption groups.
d) Sum-up of the amounts of financially feasible capacities of the different consumption
groups in order to come up with the total potential market size in MW p regarding the
28 cities that were analysed.
 Step 4: Estimation of the potential market size in financial terms by simply
multiplying the market potential in MW p with the respective prices in USD that were
assumed for the different scenarios.
Table 41 sums up the core differences in the determination of the sizes of the market niches of
the different approaches. Due to the differences in determing the average PV capacities the
calculated sizes of the market niches of the macro-approaches can not be compared directly
and in detail with those of the micro-approach. Nevertheless, conclusions can be derived by
comparing the results on a general basis.
Table 41: Core differences between macro and micro-approaches in the determination of market niche sizes
Macro-Approach
Micro-Approach Government’s Perspective
Investor’s perspective
“No tariff change” “No subsidies”
PV niches with the PV niches neglecting PV niches in a market

current electricity tariff the subsidy effect free of subsidies with
structure resulting from a cost-oriented
possible change in tariff electricity tariffs
Apllied electricity Current tariffs Average tariffs Average DAC tariffs

tariffs
Determination of Partial supply Full supply Full supply

“average PV + +
capacities” by Reduction factor: Reduction factor:
calculation of  Scenario 2: 50%  Scenario 2: 50%
systems for  Scenario 3: 50%  Scenario 3: 20%
Source: Own display
The following example shows the different steps for the determination of the sizes of the market
niches explained above. Table 42 shows the structure of the data made available by CFE.
82
Table 42: Example of data obtained from CFE

Consumption Consumption Number of users
ranges volumes
[kWh/month] [kWh/month] City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4
0 19,071 5,471 1,889 1,247
5 12,964 4,031 1,059 1,012
10 7,621 2,181 632 833
15 6,279 1,794 548 891
20 5,923 1,733 524 1,017
up to 150 25 5,690 1,697 515 1,146
50 31,342 9,931 3,110 5,945
75 40,793 14,463 4,502 6,198
100 49,603 18,885 6,440 6,788
125 49,853 20,455 8,202 6,302
140 26,558 11,634 5,566 3,186
150 15,397 7,049 3,806 1,815
175 28,208 13,825 9,092 3,278
over 150 200 16,584 9,037 7,927 2,000
225 9,889 5,640 6,484 1,192
250 6,022 3,591 5,145 735
300 6,180 3,693 7,121 754
400 3,882 2,109 6,711 489
450 747 309 1,576 82
500 464 182 1,015 55
600 536 181 1,139 58
750 367 97 766 33
850 128 31 254 14
900 44 10 90 5
1,000 66 15 127 8
1,200 77 15 145 9
1,250 12 2 23 1
1,500 39 11 75 6
1,750 21 4 41 4
DAC 2,000 10 2 23 3
2,250 6 1 15 2
2,500 5 0 10 1
2,750 3 1 6 0
3,000 2 0 5 0
3,250 2 1 2 0
3,500 2 0 2 0
3,750 1 0 2 0
4,000 0 0 1 0
5,000 2 0 2 0
6,000 1 0 1 0
7,000 1 0 0 0
8,000 0 0 0 0
10,000 0 0 0 0
Source: Own display on the basis of CFE statistics
83
Example Step 1: Compilation of consumption ranges in which PV use results financially

feasible.
a) Calculation of the average tariffs of all subconsumption ranges. Table 43 shows how the
average tariffs of the subconsumption ranges were calculated. As shown by the markings in
the example the average tariff is calculated from the respective six months of the considered
season (summer or winter).
Table 43: Example Step 1 a): Calculation of average tariffs for consumption ranges in Scenario 1 in summer
season
SUMMER SEASON
Range of consumption Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average
Basic 1-100 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563 0.552
Intermediate 0.642 0.644 0.646 0.648 0.650 0.652 0.654 0.656 0.658 0.660 0.662 0.664 0.653
Range of consumption Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Basic 1-100 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563 0.552
Intermediate 101-150 0.812 0.815 0.818 0.821 0.824 0.827 0.830 0.833 0.836 0.839 0.842 0.845 0.829
Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241 2.203
Source: Own display
b) Calculation of average tariffs for each consumption volume. As consumption volumes the 43
consumption volumes ranging from 0 to 10,000 kWh/month used in the data obtained from
CFE (see Table 42) are used. In the example shown in Table 44 a consumption volume of
300 kWh/month is assumed.
Table 44: Example Step 1 b): Calculation of average tariffs for consumption volumes/Scenario 1
Tariff 1A
Consumption volume 300 kWh/month
Subconsumption range Summer Winter
Basic a [$] 100 x 0.552 100 x 0.632
Intermediate b [$] 50 x 0.829 50 x 1.0385
Exceeding c [$] 150 x 2.203 150 x 2.2025
Seasonal average tariff (a+b+c)/300 [$] 1.057 1.118
Average tariff (sum+win)/2 [$] 1.087
Source: Own display
c) Comparison of the average tariffs of each consumption volume with the average generation
costs of the photovoltaic system.
Example Step 2: Calculation of total consumers/ households falling into these niches. On
the basis of the data obtained from CFE the number of users whose average tariff is higher than
the generation costs of a photovoltaic system can be determined for each city.
84
Example Step 3: Estimation of the potential market size in terms of capacity (MWp).
a) Definition of different consumption groups for each tariff and calculation of an average
consumption volume for each consumption group. As shown by the figure below, the sum of
the users inside the niche of each consumption volume is multiplied with the respective
consumption volume.
Figure 12: Example Step 3 a) Calculation of average consumption volume

for users in a niche in a certain consumption group
Source: Own display
For each consumption range the “volumes x users” are sumed up as well as the total
number of users inside the niche of the respective consumption range. Table 45 shows the
calculation assuming that all users of the consumption range are inside the niche.
85
Table 45: Example Step 3 a) Calculation of average consumption volume

Total number of
Volume
Consumption Consumption Number of users users in niche in
x
ranges volumes consumption
users
City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 group
[kWh/month] [kWh/month] [n] [n] [kWh*n/month]
150 15.397 7.049 3.806 1.815 28.068 4.210.125
175 28.208 13.825 9.092 3.278 54.402 9.520.365
over 150 200 16.584 9.037 7.927 2.000 35.548 7.109.533
225 9.889 5.640 6.484 1.192 23.205 5.221.013
250 6.022 3.591 5.145 735 15.493 3.873.271
Sum 156.715 29.934.306
Source: Own display
As shown by Table 46, by dividing the sum of “volume x users” by the “total number of users in
niche in consumption range” the average consumption volume of the total number of users
inside the niche in the respective consumption group results.
Table 46: Example Step 3 a) Calculation of average consumption volume

Sum
volume Total number of users in niche in Monthly average consumption
x consumption group volume of users in niche
users
[kWh*n/month] [n] [kWh/month]
a b a/b
29,934,306 156,715 191
Source: Own display
b) Allocation of average PV capacities to each of the consumption groups by means of the

underlying excel model using the full supply option and by applying reduction factors. The
resulting average PV capacities for Macro-approaches “No tariff change” and “No subsidies”
can be found in Annex 23 and Annex 24.
c) Sum-up of the number of potential households of each consumption group and multiplying
them with the respective average PV capacities leading to the total capacity which results
financially feasible for each of these consumption groups. Table 41 shows the calculation.
86
Table 47: Example Step 3 c) Calculation of total capacity resulting financially feasible for consumption group
Total capacity
Total number of users in Allocated average resulting financially
niche in consumption group PV capacity feasible for
consumption group
[n] [kW p] [kW p]
a b axb
156,715 0.80 125,372
Source: Own display
d) Sum-up of the amounts of financially feasible capacities of the different consumption groups
in order to come up with the total potential market size in MW p regarding the 28 cities that
were analysed.
Example Step 4: Estimation of the potential market size in financial terms by simply
multiplying the market potential in MW p with the respective prices in USD that were assumed for
the different scenarios.
6.1.4.2 Market niches from a macro perspective

Table 48 and Table 49 summarize the results for the Macro-approaches “No tariff change” and
“No subsidies”. Beside the total size of the niches in each scenario the tables also show the five
cities with the biggest niches in order to make the results more tangible. Both approaches
showed no niches for Scenario 1.
87
Table 48: Summary of results for the macro-approach “No tariff change”
Potential Size of Range of PV
Households
capacity niche size
Scenario "Top 5"
[MW p] [n] [mill. USD] [kW p]
Sc.1:
Current no niches
niches
1 Guadalajara 97 72,036 728 1.40
2 Chihuahua 40 17,804 300 2.25
3 Hermosillo 37 1,139 277 16.20
Sc.2:
4 Nogales 34 19,151 251 1.75
Conservative
5 Poza Rica 29 12,688 214 2.25
Outlook
Total "Top 5" 236 122,818 1,770
Total 28 Cities 516 224,462 3,867

1 Mexicali 365 71,323 1,707 3.1 - 12.3
2 Guadalajara 225 255,036 1,055 0.7 - 1.4
3 Hermosillo 201 50,217 942 3.1 - 12.3
Sc.3:
4 Tampico 111 38,116 520 2.6 - 5.4
Optimistic
5 Obregon 70 16,627 330 3.1 - 12.3
outlook
Total "Top 5" 973 431,319 4,554
Total 28 Cities 1,812 824,533 8,482
Source: Own display
Learnings and conclusion (Macro-Approach “No tariff change”)

General learnings:
 No niches in Scenario 1.
 Significant market niches in Scenario 2 and 3 in spite of the unfavourable assumptions
made by Macro-approach “No tariff change”.
 The result proves, that the framework conditions for the photovoltaic market in Mexico
can be designed in a way that allow cost-saving applications of photovoltaic systems by a
significant percentage of housholds in the mid-term offering at the time the opportunity to
reduce the total amount of subsidies paid by the Mexican government.
 Scenario 2 and 3 of the macro approach feature niches for the cost-saving application of
photovoltaic systems in all cities.
 Niches mainly exist for consumption volumes above and close to the DAC limit.
 The size of the niches of Macro-approach “No tariff change” is shown in Table 48.
88
Table 49: Summary of results for the macro-approach “No subsidies”

Potential Size of Range of PV
Households
capacity niche size
Scenario "Top 5"
[MW p] [n] [mill. USD] [kW p]
Sc.1:
Current no niches
niches
1 Mexicali 510 237,010 3,822 1.3 - 12.3
2 Guadalajara 391 910,132 2,932 0.2 - 1.4
3 Monterrey 336 318,315 2,515 0.6 - 5.4
Sc.2:
4 Hermosillo 323 203,369 2,416 1.3 - 12.3
Conservative
5 Cd. Juarez 302 332,883 2,259 0.6 - 5.4
Outlook
Total "Top 5" 1,861 2,001,708 13,943
Total 28 Cities 4,580 5,607,111 34,308

1 Mexicali 702 237,010 3,285 2.0 - 19.7
2 Guadalajara 538 910,132 2,519 0.3 - 2.2
3 Monterrey 462 318,315 2,161 0.9 - 8.6
Sc.3:
4 Hermosillo 444 203,369 2,077 2.0 - 19.7
Optimistic
5 Cd. Juarez 415 332,883 1,941 0.9 - 8.6
outlook
Total "Top 5" 2,559 2,001,708 11,983
Total 28 Cities 7,328 5,607,111 34,308
Source: Own display
Learnings and conclusion (Macro-Approach “No subsidies”)

General learnings:
 No niches in Scenario 1.
 Very significant market niches in Scenario 2 and 3.
 Subsidies cause significant market distortions. This can be seen by the huge differences
in the size of the niches in Macro-approach “No subsidies” to those identified in the micro-
approach.
 Scenario 2 and 3 feature niches for the cost-saving application of photovoltaic systems in
all cities and all consumption volumes.
 The size of the niches of Macro-approach “No tariff change” is shown in Table 49.
 In Scenario 2 of Macro-approach “No subsidies” the calculated size of the niche in
megawatt-hours is about five and a half times bigger compared to the respective result of
the micro-approach and four and a half times in Scenario 3.
89
6.1.5 Conclusions
Concerning the questions approached in Chapter 3 regarding the residential sector it can be
observed that:
 The subsidies paid by the Mexican government in order to keep the tariffs low for
households consuming in the ranges below the DAC are one of the most significant
barriers to a wider application of photovoltaic systems. It can be stated that any cutback
of subsidies would directly multiply the market niches above further.
 The structure of Tariff 1F also poses a barrier as on the one hand most of its regions
feature excellent conditions for the application of photovoltaic systems while on the other
hand it has no DAC limit during summer, i.e. in contrast to other regions in 1F-regions no
DAC applies during the hottest period of the year.
 From the results of the two macro-approaches it can be concluded that the application of
photovoltaic systems offer a huge potential for the Mexican government to cutback
subsidies on the one hand while on the other hand providing clean and cheap energy to a
large part of its citizens.
6.2 Industry and services sectors

6.2.1 Scenario 1: Current niches
The results of the cost analysis for this scenario can be found in Annex 21. In all tariffs the
generation costs of the photovoltaic systems are considerably higher than the average tariff
costs. As there aren´t even niches for a rather extreme radiation of 6 kWh/m2/d, no calculations
with lower radiaton were made. As explained previously this wouldn´t have made any sense at
all.

General learnings:
 Even for very high radiations, the analysis found no single case in which a photovoltaic
system is cost-saving in this scenario.
 As a conclusion it can be stated that at present there exist no niches for a cost-saving
application of photovoltaic systems by companies to which applies one of the regarded
general tariffs.
6.2.2 Scenario 2: Conservative outlook

This scenario serves as a conservative outlook on the development of the generation costs in
the coming five to six years. It considers a decrease of 20% of photovoltaic system prices and
thus is more conservative than the expectations quoted by photovoltaic producers for that
period.
90
The part of the results which contains some market niches and thus the most interesting part of
the cost comparison is shown in Table 50. The complete results can be found in the Annex 22.
Table 50: Scenario 2 - Cost-saving PV applications in industry and services sectors
Source: Own display

Under Scenario 2 photovoltaic systems turn out to be cost-saving in Tariff 2 for all regarded
radiations as well as in Tariff 3 for high radiations.
Depending on the assumed radiation and on system sizes, generation costs in this scenario
range from 1.76 to 2.63 $/kWh which makes them in average 35% cheaper than the generation
costs of the residential sector. The reason for this cost difference are the lower investment costs
of the photovoltaic systems assumed for the industry and services sectors due to bigger system
sizes.

General learnings:
 Niches for PV applications exist in Tariff 2 and 3.
 As the price reductions assumed in this scenario are quite conservative it can be
expected that for most Mexican companies photovoltaic systems may become interesting
in the coming years.
 Niches exist in all regions in Tariff 2.
 In Tariff 3 niches exist for regions featuring very high radiations of about 6 kWh/m2/d.
 Tariff 2 has about 93% of all users of the considered general tariffs. As a result the total
number of potential enterprises to which photovoltaic system may be interesting amounts
to about 2,500,000.
91
6.2.3 Scenario 3: Optimistic outlook

The price assumption of this scenario is based on the expectations for the next five to seven
years quoted by dealers and manufacturers and should be regarded as quite optimistic. The
assumption is a decrease of 50% in photovoltaic system prices. The expected price reduction
was justified by dealers and manufacturers with the envisaged elimination of four currently
existing bottlenecks in the supply chain for photovoltaic modules over the next five years.
Bottlenecks currently exist for the availability of cells, the encapsulation of cells, plastic films and
for glass.
Table 51 shows the results of the cost comparison under Scenario 3 for the industry and
services sectors.
92
Table 51: Scenario 3 - Cost comparison industry and services sectors

Radiation 6 kWh/m2/d 5 kWh/m2/d 4,5 kWh/m2/d
Average
charged Average
capacity consumption Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
Tariff
demand per per month of PV difference saving difference saving difference saving
month of PV user
user
kW [kWh/month] $ $ $
270 7,263 YES 5,406 YES 4,477 YES
2 135 3,632 YES 3,243 YES 3,134 YES
540 14,527 YES 10,811 YES 13,430 YES
63 4,600 62,994 YES 48,812 YES 39,779 YES
26 2,300 29,644 YES 24,406 YES 19,890 YES
3 100 9,200 125,987 YES 97,624 YES 81,367 YES
100 2,300 29,644 YES 24,406 YES 19,890 YES
26 9,200 125,987 YES 97,624 YES 81,367 YES
50 5,300 16,344 YES 1,599 YES -8,471 NO
10 2,650 8,602 YES 834 YES -4,236 NO
Baja
99 10,600 33,548 YES 3,198 YES -16,943 NO
California
99 2,650 8,602 YES 834 YES -4,236 NO
10 10,600 33,548 YES 3,198 YES -16,943 NO
50 5,300 28,054 YES 13,412 YES 3,547 YES
10 2,650 14,765 YES 6,997 YES 1,773 YES
O-M Central 99 10,600 57,584 YES 26,823 YES 7,093 YES
99 2,650 14,765 YES 6,997 YES 1,773 YES
10 10,600 57,584 YES 26,823 YES 7,093 YES
50 5,300 21,042 YES 6,338 YES -3,650 NO
10 2,650 11,075 YES 3,307 YES -1,825 NO
Northeast 99 10,600 43,191 YES 12,676 YES -7,300 NO
99 2,650 11,075 YES 3,307 YES -1,825 NO
10 10,600 43,191 YES 12,676 YES -7,300 NO
200 77,000 -26,923 NO -245,780 NO -391,063 NO
110 38,500 -13,509 NO -122,890 NO -196,053 NO
Baja
300 144,000 40,625 YES -349,647 NO -609,723 NO
Calfornia
300 38,500 -13,509 NO -122,890 NO -196,053 NO
110 144,000 40,625 YES -349,647 NO -609,723 NO
200 77,000 41,109 YES -177,587 NO -322,971 NO
110 38,500 20,628 YES -88,793 NO -161,916 NO
H-M Central 300 144,000 167,974 YES -222,339 NO -482,435 NO
300 38,500 20,628 YES -88,793 NO -161,916 NO
110 144,000 167,974 YES -222,339 NO -482,435 NO
200 77,000 -40,651 NO -259,541 NO -404,803 NO
110 38,500 -20,398 NO -129,770 NO -202,941 NO
Northeast 300 144,000 14,928 YES -375,336 NO -635,408 NO
300 38,500 -20,398 NO -129,770 NO -202,941 NO
110 144,000 14,928 YES -375,336 NO -635,408 NO
200 60,000 247,428 YES 77,372 YES -36,097 NO
110 30,000 124,279 YES 38,833 YES -18,048 NO
H-MC Northeast 300 120,000 494,857 YES 245,766 YES 28,865 YES
300 30,000 124,279 YES 38,833 YES -18,048 NO
110 120,000 494,857 YES 245,766 YES 28,865 YES
93

Average
charged Average
Tariff
month of PV user
user
300 1,710,000 8,831,564 YES 4,497,656 YES 1,608,719 YES
150 855,000 4,415,075 YES 2,248,828 YES 804,263 YES
Baja
600 3,420,000 17,661,713 YES 8,995,311 YES 3,217,439 YES
Calfornia
600 855,000 4,415,075 YES 2,248,828 YES 804,263 YES
150 3,420,000 17,661,713 YES 8,995,311 YES 3,217,439 YES
300 1,710,000 2,037,898 YES -2,295,648 NO -5,184,674 NO
150 855,000 1,018,786 YES -1,147,824 NO -2,592,026 NO
H-S Central 600 3,420,000 4,075,469 YES -4,591,295 NO -10,369,349 NO
600 855,000 1,018,786 YES -1,147,824 NO -2,592,026 NO
150 3,420,000 4,075,469 YES -4,591,295 NO -10,369,349 NO
300 1,710,000 723,928 YES -3,609,547 NO -6,498,592 NO
150 855,000 361,906 YES -1,804,774 NO -3,248,906 NO
Northeast 600 3,420,000 1,447,740 YES -7,219,095 NO -12,997,183 NO
600 855,000 361,906 YES -1,804,774 NO -3,248,906 NO
150 3,420,000 1,447,740 YES -7,219,095 NO -12,997,183 NO
300 3,980,000 14,926,898 YES 4,840,960 YES -1,883,058 NO
150 1,990,000 7,462,936 YES 2,420,341 YES -941,578 NO
Baja
600 7,960,000 29,853,795 YES 9,681,643 YES -3,766,116 NO
Calfornia
600 1,990,000 7,462,936 YES 2,420,341 YES -941,578 NO
150 7,960,000 29,853,795 YES 9,681,643 YES -3,766,116 NO
300 3,980,000 3,499,121 YES -6,586,948 NO -13,310,639 NO
150 1,990,000 1,749,440 YES -3,293,285 NO -6,655,663 NO
H-SL Central 600 7,960,000 6,998,241 YES -13,173,518 NO -26,621,277 NO
600 1,990,000 1,749,440 YES -3,293,285 NO -6,655,663 NO
150 7,960,000 6,998,241 YES -13,173,518 NO -26,621,277 NO
300 3,980,000 398,987 YES -9,687,117 NO -16,410,719 NO
150 1,990,000 199,480 YES -4,843,281 NO -8,205,783 NO
Northeast 600 7,960,000 797,974 YES -19,373,679 NO -32,821,438 NO
600 1,990,000 199,480 YES -4,843,281 NO -8,205,783 NO
150 7,960,000 797,974 YES -19,373,679 NO -32,821,438 NO
94

Average
charged Average
Tariff
month of PV user
user
500 8,100,000 34,735,601 YES 14,209,204 YES 524,806 YES
250 4,050,000 17,368,387 YES 7,104,402 YES 262,403 YES
Baja
1,000 16,200,000 69,471,201 YES 28,418,408 YES 1,049,613 YES
Calfornia
1,000 4,050,000 17,368,387 YES 7,104,402 YES 262,403 YES
250 16,200,000 69,471,201 YES 28,418,408 YES 1,049,613 YES
500 8,100,000 -931,401 NO -21,457,998 NO -35,142,195 NO
250 4,050,000 -465,716 NO -10,728,697 NO -17,571,098 NO
H-T Central 1,000 16,200,000 -1,862,802 NO -42,915,997 NO -70,284,390 NO
1,000 4,050,000 -465,716 NO -10,728,697 NO -17,571,098 NO
250 16,200,000 -1,862,802 NO -42,915,997 NO -70,284,390 NO
500 8,100,000 -11,692,930 NO -32,219,588 NO -45,903,724 NO
250 4,050,000 -5,846,663 NO -16,109,340 NO -22,951,862 NO
Peninsula 1,000 16,200,000 -23,385,860 NO -64,439,176 NO -91,807,448 NO
1,000 4,050,000 -5,846,663 NO -16,109,340 NO -22,951,862 NO
250 16,200,000 -23,385,860 NO -64,439,176 NO -91,807,448 NO
500 39,000,000 107,490,963 YES 8,659,462 YES -57,227,988 NO
250 19,500,000 53,745,482 YES 4,329,706 YES -28,613,994 NO
Baja
1,000 78,000,000 214,981,927 YES 17,318,924 YES -114,456,278 NO
Calfornia
1,000 19,500,000 53,745,482 YES 4,329,706 YES -28,613,994 NO
250 78,000,000 214,981,927 YES 17,318,924 YES -114,456,278 NO
500 39,000,000 -9,981,803 NO -108,813,167 NO -174,700,342 NO
250 19,500,000 -4,990,901 NO -54,406,265 NO -87,350,171 NO
H-TL Central 1,000 78,000,000 -19,963,606 NO -217,626,334 NO -349,401,604 NO
1,000 19,500,000 -4,990,901 NO -54,406,265 NO -87,350,171 NO
250 78,000,000 -19,963,606 NO -217,626,334 NO -349,401,604 NO
500 39,000,000 -61,836,548 NO -160,667,851 NO -226,554,905 NO
250 19,500,000 -30,918,274 NO -80,333,456 NO -113,277,452 NO
1,000 19,500,000 -30,918,274 NO -80,333,456 NO -113,277,452 NO
250 78,000,000 -123,673,095 NO -321,335,702 NO -453,111,002 NO
Source: Own display

Tariff 2 & 3: In the tariffs 2 and 3 the photovoltaic systems are cost-saving for all regions.
Tariff O-M: In Tariff O-M photovoltaic systems are cost-saving for regions featuring a radiation of
about 5 kWh/m2/d and higher independent of the tariff region. For low radiations only systems in
the region Central turned out to be cost-saving as this region features among the highest prices
of Tariff O-M. Furthermore, it can be said that photovoltaic systems are not cost-saving in the
regions North, Northwest and Peninsula whereas they are cost-saving in the regions Baja
California Sur and South.
Tariff H-M: Regarding Tariff H-M the model shows cost savings for all three regions Central,
Baja California and Northeast. However, for the latter only two systems with high consumption
levels are cost-saving, to be more precisely systems with sizes above 50 kW. This is due to the
assumption that at a system size of 50 kW a lower price applies. This price drop is the reason for
the two cases in each region, Baja California and Northeast, in which the systems are cost-
95
saving for the highest radiation. For the region Baja California Sur it can be concluded that the
situation is the same as in the region Central. The situation in the other regions is much the
same as in Northeast and Baja California.
Tariff H-MC: Photovoltaic systems are cost-saving for radiations of 5 to 6 kWh/m2/d and in cases
of system sizes above 50 kW p also for a radiation of 4,5 kWh/m2/d. As the tariffs (prices to
customer) of Northeast are lower than those of Baja California (the only other region this tariff
applies for) it can be stated that the same niches exist there too.
Tariff H-S & H-SL: For the tariffs H-S and H-SL Scenario 3 shows that photovoltaic applications
are cost-saving in all three regions, Northeast, Central, Baja California, for high radiations and in
Baja California even for radiations from 4,5 to 6 kWh/m2/d in Tariff H-S and in Tariff H-SL for
radiations from 5 to 6 kWh/m2/d respectively.
Tariff H-T & H-TL: Regarding the tariffs H-T and H-TL the application of photovoltaic systems is
cost-saving only in the region of Baja California and there again only for radiations of 5 to 6
kWh/m2/d in Tariff H-TL and for radiations of 4,5 to 6 kWh/m2/d in Tariff H-T respectively. For the
regions Northeast, Northwest, North and South the situation is the same as for Peninsular and
Central. For the region of Baja California Sur the situation is about the same as in Baja
California.
The generation costs of the regarded photovoltaic systems in this scenario range from 1,07 to
1,60 $/kWh and thus are about 35% cheaper than the respective maximum and minimum costs
in the residential sector which is the result of the lower investment costs of photovoltaic systems
assumed for the industry and services sectors.

General learnings:
 Scenario 3 shows niches in Tariff 2 and 3 as well as for O-M and H-MC.
 If market prices for PV systems would decline according to this Scenario, PV applications
are very likely to attract strong investment from companies.
 In Tariff 2 and 3 photovoltaic systems would become cost-saving for a radiation of 4.5 to
6 kWh/m2/d.
 In Tariff O-M photovoltaic systems are cost-saving for all regions featuring a radiation of
about 5 kWh/m2/d and higher
 In Tariff H-M systems are cost-saving for very high radiations of about 6 kWh/m2/d in the
region Central and Baja California Sur. Furthermore niches exist in the regions Baja
California, Northeast, Northwest, North and South for systems above 50 kWp and a
radiation of about 6 kWh/m2/d.
 In Tariff H-MC photovoltaic systems are cost-saving in both regions for radiations of 5 to
6 kWh/m2/d and in cases of system sizes above 50 kWp also for a radiation of 4.5
kWh/m2/d.
 For the tariffs H-S and H-SL photovoltaic applications are cost-saving in all regions for
high radiations of about 6 kWh/m2/d. In Baja California systems are cost-saving for
radiations from 4.5 to 6 kWh/m2/d in Tariff H-S and in Tariff H-SL for radiations from 5 to
6 kWh/m2/d respectively.
96
 Regarding the tariffs H-T and H-TL the application of photovoltaic systems is cost-saving
only in the regions of Baja California and Baja California Sur for radiations of 5 to 6
kWh/m2/d in Tariff H-TL and for radiations of 4,5 to 6 kWh/m2/d in Tariff H-T
respectively.
 Photovoltaic applications could be relevant to an estimated 98% of all users of the
considered general tariffs which amounts to about 2,700,000 potential enterprises.
6.2.4 Conclusions
With respect to the analysis of the niches for the industry and services sectors it can be stated
that:
 the proportion of consumption volume and capacity demand hardly had any influence on
the resulting niches.
 the tariffs appear to be quite low in comparison with the residential sector although it was
quoted by the Conuee that no subsidies are paid to the tariffs considered for the two
sectors. It is not clear to which degree these tariffs reflect the actual generation costs of
CFE. Furthermore, it can be assumed that the tariffs do not reflect the fuel costs causing
a distortion of the competition to the disadvantage for the photovoltaic market and the
market for renewable energies in general.
97
Methodological reflections and conclusions
7 Methodological reflections and conclusions

7.1 Sensitivity analysis
It lies in the nature of studies that their results depend to a large extent on the quality of available
input data. As input data can vary due to different sources or differences in measurement this
chapter presents a sensitivity analysis of the results presented in Chapter 6. Two core
parameters are analysed:
 the impact on the results of a variation in the solar radiation data for the residential sector
(residential sector only, as a similar analysis varying the radiation is made in Chapter
6.2)
 the impact on the results of a variation of the discount rate both for the residential sector
as well as the industry and services sectors.
7.1.1 Influence of a variation of the solar radiation

Scenario 1: In order to analyse the impact of lower and higher solar radiation data on the cost-
saving effect of photovoltaic systems in the residential sector in Scenario 1 the radiation is varied
by ±15%. The results are shown in Annex 26 for the cost comparison of the photovoltaic
systems for partial supply. The cost comparison of the systems for full supply is not shown as
none of these systems is cost-saving, no matter the radiation. In Scenario 1 niches for
photovoltaic systems in the residential sector only exist for households featuring a consumption
volume slightly above the DAC limit. As it is shown in Annex 26 these niches appear in some
more cities and obviously their cost-saving effect is increasing with a higher radiation and
decreasing with a smaller one respectively. Nevertheless the considered smaller and higher
radiation data shows no change in the characteristics of the niches as such and thus for the
general economical situation of photovoltaic systems in Mexico at present. The same holds true
for Scenarios 2 and 3 as shown in Annex 27 and Annex 28. In this way the core conclusion is
that not even a quite significant variation of the solar radiation has a significant effect on the
structure of the niches that were identified with the original input data.
Scenario 2: As in this scenario systems for full supply turn out to be cost-saving the differences
between the tariff costs and the costs of both PV options are shown in Annex 27. However, the
columns displaying “yes” if systems are cost-saving are not shown in Annex 27 due to lack of
space. Scenario 2 showed cost-savings for PV systems applied by households consuming
above the DAC limit. In Tariff 1 – 1B and Tariff 1D this result remains unchanged if radiation data
is reduced by 15%. In Tariff 1C and Tariff 1E cities with rather low annual average radiations
turn out to have higher generation costs than the average tariff as net present value. In other
words, the niche still exists under the assumption of reduced radiation data but for full supply PV
systems in cities with rather low annual average radiations. Furthermore, in the next
consumption range below the DAC only cities with radiations above 5 kWh/m2/d and in the tariffs
1 – 1B are cost-saving if radiation data is reduced. In the case of increased radiation data PV
systems for full supply in cities with very high radiations become even cost-saving in the
consumption range next below the DAC. Thus, it can be stated that in this scenario higher or
lower radiation data has no impact on the conclusion that PV systems are most interesting to
households with a consumption range above the DAC.
99
Scenario 3: Annex 28 clearly shows that in Scenario 3 the variation of radiation data hardly
shows any impact on the characteristics of the niches stated in Chapter 6.1. However, for a
variation of +15% in some very few cities generation costs of PV systems become even lower
than the average tariff as net present value of the lowest consumption range.
7.1.2 Influence of a variation of the discount rate

The discount rate has a strong impact on the calculation of the net present value of the overall
tariff costs. As can be derived from Formula 5-1 low discount rates increase the net present
value of the tariff costs whereas higher ones decrease it. In order to examine the impact of the
discount rate on the results of the three sectors it is varied by ±4%.
7.1.2.1 Residential sector

Scenario 1: Annex 29 shows the results of the cost comparison of Scenario 1 for the residential
sector for discount rates of 4%, 8% (reference case) and 12%. As can be clearly seen in the
table the low discount factor of 4% not only increases the cost-saving effect of the niches but
also creates new niches altering the current market situation of photovoltaic systems in Mexico.
For a discount rate of 4% the generation costs of photovoltaic systems would be already lower in
regions with a radiation of about the national average than the average tariff without PV of the
DAC. On the other side, the higher discount rate of 12% causes the niches nearly to disappear
in all tariffs but 1.
Scenario 2: The variation of the discount rate to 4% makes PV generation costs cheaper than
the tariff of the consumption range next below the DAC. In Tariff 1A the variation of ±4% shows
no major changes of the niches’ characteristics. However, in most tariffs the variation of +4%
leaves the PV option for full supply to be not cost-saving anymore which means that PV
generation costs are higher than the average annual DAC as net present value. Thus, for a
discount rate of 12% the niches would be much smaller (Annex 30).
Scenario 3: In cities with a rather high annual average radiation the lower discount rate would
make PV systems cost-saving even in the lowest consumption range. On the other side, the
higher discount rate hardly has any impact on the niches’ characterisitics. It can be stated that
due to the low generation costs of Scenario 3 the discount rate has the lowest impact compared
with the other scenarios (Annex 31: Scenario 3 - Cost comparison for different discount rates).
7.1.2.2 Industry and services sectors

What has been said above about the impact of the discount rate on the net present value of the
tariff costs is true to the same degree for the industry and services sectors. For the discount
rates of 4%, 8% (reference case) and 12% only the parts of the cost comparison of the general
tariffs is shown in the tables which feature niches.
Scenario 1: As can be seen in Annex 32 the low discount rate causes niches for photovoltaic
systems to appear in Tariff 2 of Scenario 1 even if their cost-saving effect might still be quite low.
All other tariffs show no reaction concerning niches. For a discount rate of 12% the general
conclusion on the current market situation of photovoltaic systems in the industry and services
sectors is unchanged.
100
Scenario 2: Annex 33 shows that in Scenario 2 a discount rate of 4% would make PV systems
cost-saving against the general tariffs in some cases. This mainly happens in Tariff 2 and 3. In
other tariffs this only occurs for regions which feature quite low tariffs and high radiations. The
higher discount rate would cause PV systems to be cost-saving only in Tariff 2 and only in
regions with radiations of about the national average or higher. Thus, for Scenario 2 it can be
stated that the impact of the discount rate on the situation of PV systems appears to be quite
high.
Scenario 3: As can be seen in Annex 34 the impact of the discount rate on the PV niches is
quite strong in this scenario. For the low discount rate nearly all considered cases of PV
applications are cost-saving whereas for a discount rate of 8% the main niches still exist in the
tariffs 2 – OM as well as in the other tariffs for regions with very high radiations. On the other
side for the considered high discount rate PV systems are only cost-saving in Tariff 2 and 3.
7.2 Limitations of the study

Taking into account the quite limited data and information currently available concerning the
financial feasibility of grid-connected photovoltaic systems in Mexico this study should be
understood as a first step. This is why the cost comparison between tariffs and photovoltaic
systems of the present study is limited to the analysis if photovoltaic systems can save costs
against the tariffs. Beyond that, the profitability of photovoltaic systems being cost-saving has
not been further regarded. Thus, the expressiveness of the study for investment decisions is
somehow limited. A future study should focus on the calculation of payback periods and
profitability indicators.
The variables used for the calculation of the photovoltaic systems bear some uncertainties due
to the fact that they had to be applied on a quite general basis and could not be determined for
individual cases. So, for example, in the residential sector it was decided to introduce the high
temperature loss factor as the differences in average summer temperature between the regions
appeared to be quite high and as the regarded crystalline modules feature efficiency losses due
to high temperatures whereas other variables like the cloudiness could not be considered.
Another aspect that should be pointed out in this context is that the sizing of the systems did not
result in sizes that would in every case allow for an installation at that size in reality. The results
of the cost comparison thus reflect the situation of an optimally sized system (from a financial
point of view). Concerning the data used it has to be pointed out that it was not possible to
determine the data by means of proper empirical research because of time and resource
constraints. In this context it seems of particular interest to validate the actual performance of
photovoltaic systems of different sizes in Mexico and determine representative consumption
volumes for different household sizes and business branches. The two Excel models designed
for the residential sector and for the industry and services sectors offer a sound base to improve
the preciseness of the results once better data is available.
101
7.3 Closing remarks and outlook

This study discussed the financial feasiblity of grid-connected photovoltaic systems in the
Mexican residential sector and in the industry and services sectors. As the study showed in
Scenario 1 at present the electricity generation costs of a photovoltaic system are under no
circumstances cheaper than the applying tariffs of all three sectors. As a result the study
concludes that with current equipment prices the conditions for a financially feasible use of grid-
connected photovoltaic systems in the Mexican residential as well as the industry and services
sectors are quite limited. However, looking into the near future the mid-term perspectives for
grid-connected photovoltaic applications in the Mexican residential sector appear to be much
brighter. Against the background of last years’ trend of falling prices for photovoltaic modules
and the recently intensive investments in this branch, expectations for further price declines
seem to become reality. Even quite conservative assumptions concerning price declines for
photovoltaic systems, represented in Scenario 2, showed that the overall costs for photovoltaic
systems can be lower than the overall costs for purchasing the electricity from the national grid.
Scenario 3, a more optimistic outlook regarding price declines, showed huge possibilities for
financially feasible photovoltaic applications. Table 52 and Table 53 sum up the core results
with respect to the niches that were identified in the three sectors within all three scenarios.

Potential Range of
capacity PV size
Scenario "Top 5"
2 Chihuahua 9 14,941 67
Total "Top 5" 54 89,622 403
Total 28 Cities 81 133,499 608
2%
1 Guadalajara 174 388,224 1,302 0.1 - 1.3
2 Cuautla 52 73,297 392 0.6 - 1.9
Outlook" 5 Puebla 41 89,854 306 0.1 - 1.3
Total "Top 5" 362 659,471 2,708
Total 28 Cities 693 956,629 5,190
17%
1 Guadalajara 174 388,224 814 0.1 - 1.3
2 Mexicali 141 44,606 659 0.2 - 15.5
outlook" 5 Tampico 66 55,366 307 0.1 - 3.7
Total "Top 5" 593 684,372 2,774
Total 28 Cities 1,336 1,486,362 6,255
27%
Source: Own display
102
Table 53: Size of niches in the industry and services sectors (micro-approach)

Potential enterprises
[#] 0 2,557,478 2,716,943
Percentage on overall
enterprises [%] 0 93 98
Source: Own display
This first detailed study on the financial feasibility of photovoltaic systems in Mexico offers quite
some interesting and - in the mid-term - promising results. However, in order to further improve
the information generated for decision makers additional research should be carried out. In
particular, there is a need to analyse the actual performance of photovoltaic systems of different
sizes in Mexico. Furthermore, it would be helpful to consider representative consumption
volumes for different household sizes and business branches, which still need to be identified, in
order to improve the estimation of market niches. In general, the coverage of the industry and
services sectors should be improved. Finally, it seems highly important to carry out a more
detailed analysis which kind of mechanisms would be the most attractive from a government’s
perspective to promote the use of grid connected photolvoltaic systems in Mexico. For the time
being, the excel-model developed for this study features two quite quick and easy tools that
enable potential investors in the household as well as in the industry and services sectors to
calculate for their individual case whether a photovoltaic system is or not cost-saving (available
at: www.conuee.gob.mx).
103
Annex
Annex
Annex 1: Calculation of theoretically required Mexican territory for 100% PV coverage
Photovoltaic data
a Performance ratio 73 %
b Efficiency 10 %
Mexico data
c Final electricity consumption 611.13 PJ/a
d Mexican territory 1,984,375,000,000.00 m2
e Radiation global, daily 5.00 kWh/m2d
f Radiation global, annual 1,825.00 kWh/m2a
g Electricity produced by PV systems (1) f*a*b 133.23 kWh/m2a
h Electricity produced by PV systems (2) g*3600/1*E12 0.0000004796 PJ/m2a
i Necessary PV area c/h 1,274,212,380.89 m2
j Percentage of total territory i*100/d 0.064 %
Source: Own display
105
Annex
Annex 2: Residential tariffs
Tariff 1
Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643
Intermediate 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751 0.753 0.755 0.757
Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643
Intermediate 76-125 1.022 1.025 1.028 1.031 1.034 1.037 1.040 1.043 1.046 1.049 1.052 1.055
Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241
Tariff 1A
SUMMER SEASON
Basic 1-100 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563
Intermediate 0.642 0.644 0.646 0.648 0.650 0.652 0.654 0.656 0.658 0.660 0.662 0.664
Basic 1-100 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563
Intermediate 101-150 0.812 0.815 0.818 0.821 0.824 0.827 0.830 0.833 0.836 0.839 0.842 0.845
Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241
WINTER SEASON
Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643
Intermediate 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751 0.753 0.755 0.757
Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643
Intermediate 76-125 1.022 1.025 1.028 1.031 1.034 1.037 1.040 1.043 1.046 1.049 1.052 1.055
Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241
Tariff 1B
SUMMER SEASON
Basic 1-125 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563
Intermediate 0.642 0.644 0.646 0.648 0.650 0.652 0.654 0.656 0.658 0.660 0.662 0.664
Basic 1-125 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563
Intermediate 126-200 0.812 0.815 0.818 0.821 0.824 0.827 0.830 0.833 0.836 0.839 0.842 0.845
Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241
WINTER SEASON
Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643
Intermediate 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751 0.753 0.755 0.757
Intermediate 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643
Intermediate 76-150 1.022 1.025 1.028 1.031 1.034 1.037 1.040 1.043 1.046 1.049 1.052 1.055
Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241
106
Annex
Tariff 1C
SUMMER SEASON
Basic 1-150 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563
Intermediate 0.642 0.644 0.646 0.648 0.650 0.652 0.654 0.656 0.658 0.660 0.662 0.664
Basic 1-150 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563
Intermediate 151-450 0.812 0.815 0.818 0.821 0.824 0.827 0.830 0.833 0.836 0.839 0.842 0.845
Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241
WINTER SEASON
Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643
Intermediate 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751 0.753 0.755 0.757
Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643
Intermediate 76-150 1.022 1.025 1.028 1.031 1.034 1.037 1.040 1.043 1.046 1.049 1.052 1.055
Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241
Tariff 1D
SUMMER SEASON
Basic 1-175 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563
Intermediate 0.642 0.644 0.646 0.648 0.650 0.652 0.654 0.656 0.658 0.660 0.662 0.664
Basic 1-175 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563
Intermediate 176-600 0.812 0.815 0.818 0.821 0.824 0.827 0.830 0.833 0.836 0.839 0.842 0.845
Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241
WINTER SEASON
Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643
Intermediate 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751 0.753 0.755 0.757
Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643
Intermediate 76-175 1.022 1.025 1.028 1.031 1.034 1.037 1.040 1.043 1.046 1.049 1.052 1.055
Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241
107
Annex
Tariff 1E
SUMMER SEASON
Basic 1-300 0.441 0.442 0.443 0.444 0.445 0.446 0.447 0.448 0.449 0.450 0.451 0.452
Intermediate 0.572 0.574 0.576 0.578 0.580 0.582 0.584 0.586 0.588 0.590 0.592 0.594
Basic 1-300 0.441 0.442 0.443 0.444 0.445 0.446 0.447 0.448 0.449 0.450 0.451 0.452
Intermediate 301-900 0.729 0.731 0.733 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751
Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241
WINTER SEASON
Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643
Intermediate 76-200 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751 0.753 0.755 0.757
Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241
Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643
Intermediate 76-200 1.022 1.025 1.028 1.031 1.034 1.037 1.040 1.043 1.046 1.049 1.052 1.055
Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241
Tariff 1F
SUMMER SEASON
Consumption of up to 1,200 kWh per month
Basic 1-300 0.441 0.442 0.443 0.444 0.445 0.446 0.447 0.448 0.449 0.450 0.451 0.452
Exceeding 0.572 0.574 0.576 0.578 0.580 0.582 0.584 0.586 0.588 0.590 0.592 0.594
Consumption exceeding 1,200 kWh per month
Basic 1-300 0.441 0.442 0.443 0.444 0.445 0.446 0.447 0.448 0.449 0.450 0.451 0.452
Intermediate Low 301-1,200 0.729 0.731 0.733 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751
Intermediate High 1,201-2,500 1.360 1.364 1.368 1.372 1.376 1.380 1.385 1.390 1.395 1.400 1.405 1.410
Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241
WINTER SEASON
Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643
Intermediate 76-200 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751 0.753 0.755 0.757
Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241
Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643
Intermediate 76-200 1.022 1.025 1.028 1.031 1.034 1.037 1.040 1.043 1.046 1.049 1.052 1.055
Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241
Source: www.cfe.gob.mx/es/InformacionAlCliente/conocetutarifa/
108
Annex
Annex 3: DAC electricity prices (2007) (residential sector)

Charges for energy consumption ($/kWh)
Region
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Baja California
Summer 2.46 2.39 2.38 2.38 2.40 2.44 2.49 2.54 2.55 2.55 2.51 2.49
Winter 2.12 2.06 2.05 2.05 2.07 2.10 2.15 2.19 2.19 2.20 2.16 2.15
Baja California South
Summer 2.69 2.61 2.59 2.60
2.62 2.66 2.72 2.78 2.78 2.78 2.73 2.72
Winter 2.12 2.06 2.05 2.05
2.07 2.10 2.15 2.19 2.19 2.20 2.16 2.15
Northwest 2.37 2.30 2.29 2.29
2.32 2.35 2.40 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.41 2.40
North and Northeast 2.31 2.24 2.23 2.23
2.25 2.28 2.34 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.35 2.34
South and Peninsular 2.35 2.28 2.27 2.27
2.29 2.32 2.38 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.39 2.38
Central 2.54 2.46 2.45 2.45
2.48 2.51 2.57 2.62 2.62 2.62 2.58 2.57
Fix charge ($/month)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
58.61 56.95 56.63 56.68 57.24 57.99 59.35 60.60 60.62 60.67 59.63 59.30
At the time of the elaboration of the study the DAC prices of September to December where not
available. These prices were assumed on the basis of the prices of the respective months of the
year 2006 considering the rate of price increase.
109
Annex
Annex 4: Allocation of intervals for tariffs H-S/H-SL (industry and services sectors)
From the first February until the Saturday before the first Sunday of
April
Monday to Friday 0:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 19:00 19:00 - 22:00
22:00 - 24:00
From the first Sunday of April until the 31 of July

Monday to Friday 1:00 - 6:00 0:00 - 1:00 20:00 - 22:00
6:00 - 20:00
22:00 - 24:00
From the first of August until the Saturday before the last Sunday of
October
Monday to Friday 0:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 19:00 19:00 - 22:00
22:00 - 24:00
From the last Sunday of October until the 31 of January

Monday to Friday 0:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 18:00 18:00 - 22:00
22:00 - 24:00
Source: http://www.cfe.gob.mx/aplicaciones/ccfe/tarifas/tarifas/Tarifas.asp?Tarifa=HS
Annex 5: FRI and FRB values for tariffs H-S/H-SL

(industry and services sectors)
Region FRI FRB

Central 0.200 0.100
North 0.200 0.100
South 0.200 0.100
Source: http://www.cfe.gob.mx/aplicaciones/ccfe/tarifas/tarifas/Tarifas.asp?Tarifa=HS
110
Annex
Annex 6: Allocation of intervals for tariffs H-T/H-TL (industry and services sectors)
From the first February until the Saturday before the first Sunday of
April
Monday to Friday 0:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 19:30 19:30 - 22:30
22:30 - 24:00
From the first Sunday of April until the 31 of July

Monday to Friday 1:00 - 6:00 0:00 - 1:00 20:30 - 22:30
6:00 - 20:30
22:30 - 24:00
From the first of August until the Saturday before the last Sunday of
October
Monday to Friday 0:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 19:30 19:30 - 22:30
22:30 - 24:00
From the last Sunday of October until the 31 of January

Monday to Friday 0:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 18:30 18:30 - 22:30
22:30 - 24:00
Source: http://www.cfe.gob.mx/aplicaciones/ccfe/tarifas/tarifas/Tarifas.asp?Tarifa=HT
Annex 7: FRI and FRB values for tariffs H-T/H-TL (industry and services sectors)
Region FRI FRB

Central 0.100 0.050
North 0.100 0.050
South 0.100 0.050
Source: http://www.cfe.gob.mx/aplicaciones/ccfe/tarifas/tarifas/Tarifas.asp?Tarifa=HT
111
Annex
Annex 8: Low, medium and high voltage tariffs (2007) (industry and services sectors)
Tariff 2
Price per kilowatt-hour ($/kWh)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dec
Basic 1 - 50 1.724 1.675 1.665 1.666 1.682 1.704 1.744 1.781 1.808 1.822 1.834 1.853
Intermediate 51 - 100 2.082 2.023 2.011 2.013 2.033 2.060 2.108 2.152 2.185 2.202 2.217 2.240
Exceeding 2.296 2.231 2.218 2.220 2.242 2.271 2.324 2.373 2.409 2.427 2.443 2.468
Fix charge ($)
Monthly 44.200 42.940 42.700 42.740 43.160 43.730 44.760 45.700 46.400 46.750 47.060 47.540
Tariff 3
Price per kilowatt-hour ($/kWh)
200.670 194.970 193.860 194.030 195.950 198.520 203.190 207.460 210.630 212.230 213.630 215.830
Fix charge ($)
Monthly 1.264 1.228 1.221 1.222 1.234 1.250 1.279 1.306 1.326 1.336 1.345 1.359
Tariff O-M
Baja California
Demand charge ($/kW) 98.460 95.090 94.860 94.990 105.800 107.620 110.540 113.180 115.050 105.190 106.010 107.290
Price per kilowatt-hour ($/kWh) 0.752 0.726 0.724 0.725 0.892 0.907 0.932 0.954 0.970 0.803 0.809 0.819
Baja California Sur
Demand charge ($/kW) 107.130 103.470 103.220 103.360 117.190 119.210 122.440 125.370 127.440 114.470 115.360 116.760
Northwest
Demand charge ($/kW) 115.380 111.430 111.160 111.320 112.380 114.310 117.410 120.220 122.200 123.290 124.250 125.750
Central
Demand charge ($/kW) 122.920 118.720 118.440 118.610 119.740 121.800 125.100 128.090 130.200 131.360 132.380 133.980
Northeast
Demand charge ($/kW) 113.030 109.160 108.900 109.050 110.090 111.980 115.010 117.760 119.700 120.770 121.710 123.180
North
Demand charge ($/kW) 113.470 109.590 109.330 109.480 110.520 112.420 115.470 118.230 120.180 121.250 122.200 123.680
Peninsular
Demand charge ($/kW) 126.860 122.520 122.230 122.400 123.560 125.690 129.100 132.190 134.370 135.570 136.630 138.280
South
Demand charge ($/kW) 122.920 118.720 118.440 118.610 119.740 121.800 125.100 128.090 130.200 131.360 132.380 133.980
112
Annex
Tariff H-M
Baja California
Demand charge ($/kW) 183.700 177.420 176.990 177.240 178.920 182.000 186.930 191.400 194.560 196.290 197.820 200.210
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.511 2.425 2.419 2.422 2.445 2.487 2.555 2.616 2.659 2.683 2.704 2.736
Intermediate price ($/kWh) 0.695 0.671 0.669 0.670 0.677 0.688 0.707 0.724 0.736 0.742 0.748 0.757
Base price ($/kWh) 0.546 0.527 0.526 0.527 0.532 0.541 0.556 0.569 0.578 0.583 0.588 0.595
Baja California Sur
Demand charge ($/kW) 176.550 170.510 170.100 170.340 171.960 174.920 179.660 183.950 186.990 188.650 190.120 192.420
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.014 1.945 1.941 1.943 1.962 1.996 2.050 2.099 2.133 2.152 2.169 2.195
Base price ($/kWh) 0.683 0.659 0.658 0.659 0.665 0.676 0.695 0.711 0.723 0.729 0.735 0.744
Central
Demand charge ($/kW) 127.340 122.980 122.680 122.850 124.020 126.150 129.570 132.670 134.860 136.060 137.120 138.780
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.406 2.324 2.318 2.322 2.344 2.384 2.449 2.507 2.548 2.571 2.591 2.623
Base price ($/kWh) 0.643 0.621 0.620 0.620 0.626 0.637 0.654 0.670 0.681 0.687 0.693 0.701
Northeast
Demand charge ($/kW) 117.080 113.080 112.810 112.970 114.040 116.000 119.140 121.990 124.000 125.100 126.080 127.610
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.222 2.146 2.141 2.144 2.165 2.202 2.262 2.316 2.354 2.375 2.393 2.422
Base price ($/kWh) 0.585 0.565 0.564 0.565 0.570 0.580 0.596 0.610 0.620 0.626 0.630 0.638
Northwest
Demand charge ($/kW) 119.560 115.470 115.190 115.350 116.450 118.450 121.660 124.570 126.630 127.760 128.760 130.320
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.235 2.159 2.154 2.157 2.177 2.215 2.275 2.329 2.367 2.389 2.407 2.436
Base price ($/kWh) 0.594 0.574 0.573 0.573 0.579 0.589 0.605 0.619 0.630 0.635 0.640 0.648
North
Demand charge ($/kW) 117.630 113.610 113.340 113.500 114.580 116.550 119.710 122.570 124.590 125.700 126.680 128.210
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.239 2.162 2.157 2.160 2.180 2.218 2.278 2.332 2.371 2.392 2.411 2.440
Base price ($/kWh) 0.587 0.567 0.566 0.566 0.572 0.582 0.597 0.612 0.622 0.627 0.632 0.640
Peninsular
Demand charge ($/kW) 131.550 127.050 126.750 126.930 128.140 130.340 133.870 137.070 139.330 140.570 141.670 143.380
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.354 2.274 2.268 2.271 2.293 2.332 2.395 2.453 2.493 2.515 2.535 2.566
Base price ($/kWh) 0.596 0.575 0.574 0.575 0.580 0.590 0.606 0.621 0.631 0.636 0.641 0.649
South
Demand charge ($/kW) 127.340 122.980 122.680 122.850 124.020 126.150 129.570 132.670 134.860 136.060 137.120 138.780
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.357 2.276 2.270 2.274 2.295 2.335 2.398 2.455 2.496 2.518 2.538 2.568
Base price ($/kWh) 0.612 0.591 0.589 0.590 0.596 0.606 0.622 0.637 0.648 0.654 0.659 0.667
Tariff H-MC
Baja California
Demand charge ($/kW) 165.390 159.730 159.350 159.570 161.090 163.860 168.300 172.320 175.160 176.720 178.100 180.260
Peak price ($/kWh) 3.646 3.521 3.512 3.517 3.551 3.612 3.710 3.798 3.861 3.896 3.926 3.973
Base price ($/kWh) 0.546 0.527 0.526 0.527 0.532 0.541 0.556 0.569 0.578 0.583 0.588 0.595
Northwest
Demand charge ($/kW) 71.760 69.310 69.140 69.240 69.900 71.100 73.030 74.780 76.010 76.690 77.290 78.230
Peak price ($/kWh) 1.884 1.820 1.815 1.818 1.835 1.867 1.917 1.963 1.996 2.013 2.029 2.054
Base price ($/kWh) 0.761 0.735 0.734 0.735 0.742 0.754 0.775 0.793 0.806 0.814 0.820 0.830
113
Annex
Level subtransmission
Tariff H-S
Baja California
Demand charge ($/kW) 149.950 143.770 144.000 144.290 145.600 148.820 153.490 157.660 160.480 162.170 163.690 166.010
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.857 2.739 2.743 2.749 2.774 2.835 2.924 3.004 3.058 3.090 3.119 3.163
Semipeak price ($/kWh) 1.238 1.187 1.189 1.192 1.202 1.229 1.268 1.302 1.325 1.339 1.352 1.371
Base price ($/kWh) 0.565 0.542 0.543 0.544 0.549 0.561 0.579 0.594 0.605 0.611 0.617 0.626
Baja California Sur
Demand charge ($/kW) 162.380 155.690 155.940 156.250 157.670 161.150 166.210 170.730 173.790 175.610 177.260 179.780
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.044 1.960 1.963 1.967 1.985 2.029 2.092 2.149 2.188 2.211 2.232 2.263
Base price ($/kWh) 0.698 0.669 0.670 0.671 0.677 0.692 0.714 0.733 0.747 0.754 0.761 0.772
Central
Demand charge ($/kW) 84.710 81.220 81.350 81.510 82.250 84.070 86.710 89.070 90.660 91.610 92.470 93.780
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.771 2.657 2.661 2.667 2.691 2.751 2.837 2.914 2.966 2.997 3.026 3.069
Base price ($/kWh) 0.657 0.630 0.631 0.632 0.638 0.652 0.672 0.690 0.703 0.710 0.717 0.727
Northeast
Demand charge ($/kW) 83.210 79.780 79.910 80.070 80.800 82.590 85.180 87.500 89.070 90.010 90.860 92.150
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.689 2.579 2.583 2.588 2.611 2.669 2.753 2.828 2.878 2.909 2.936 2.978
Base price ($/kWh) 0.601 0.576 0.577 0.578 0.584 0.597 0.615 0.632 0.643 0.650 0.656 0.666
Northwest
Demand charge ($/kW) 84.450 80.970 81.100 81.260 82.000 83.810 86.440 88.790 90.380 91.330 92.190 93.500
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.693 2.582 2.586 2.591 2.615 2.673 2.757 2.832 2.882 2.913 2.940 2.982
Base price ($/kWh) 0.607 0.582 0.583 0.584 0.589 0.602 0.621 0.638 0.649 0.656 0.662 0.672
North
Demand charge ($/kW) 83.680 80.230 80.360 80.520 81.250 83.050 85.660 87.990 89.570 90.510 91.360 92.660
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.704 2.592 2.596 2.601 2.625 2.683 2.767 2.843 2.894 2.924 2.951 2.993
Base price ($/kWh) 0.598 0.574 0.575 0.576 0.581 0.594 0.612 0.629 0.640 0.647 0.653 0.662
Peninsular
Demand charge ($/kW) 86.150 82.600 82.730 82.900 83.650 85.500 88.180 90.580 92.200 93.170 94.050 95.390
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.693 2.582 2.586 2.591 2.615 2.673 2.757 2.832 2.882 2.913 2.940 2.982
Base price ($/kWh) 0.603 0.578 0.579 0.580 0.585 0.598 0.617 0.634 0.645 0.652 0.658 0.667
South
Demand charge ($/kW) 84.710 81.220 81.350 81.510 82.250 84.070 86.710 89.070 90.660 91.610 92.470 93.780
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.708 2.596 2.600 2.606 2.629 2.687 2.772 2.847 2.898 2.929 2.956 2.998
Base price ($/kWh) 0.614 0.588 0.589 0.590 0.596 0.609 0.628 0.645 0.657 0.664 0.670 0.679
114
Annex
Tariff H-SL
Baja California
Demand charge ($/kW) 224.820 215.560 215.900 216.330 218.300 223.120 230.130 236.390 240.620 243.150 245.440 248.930
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.135 2.047 2.050 2.055 2.073 2.119 2.186 2.245 2.285 2.309 2.331 2.364
Base price ($/kWh) 0.565 0.542 0.543 0.544 0.549 0.561 0.579 0.594 0.605 0.611 0.617 0.626
Baja California Sur
Demand charge ($/kW) 194.770 186.750 187.050 187.420 189.130 193.310 199.380 204.800 208.470 210.660 212.640 215.660
Peak price ($/kWh) 1.862 1.785 1.788 1.791 1.808 1.848 1.906 1.957 1.992 2.013 2.032 2.061
Base price ($/kWh) 0.698 0.669 0.670 0.671 0.677 0.692 0.714 0.733 0.747 0.754 0.761 0.772
Central
Demanda Facturable ($/kW) 127.010 121.780 121.970 122.210 123.320 126.050 130.010 133.550 135.940 137.370 138.660 140.630
Energía Punta ($/kWh) 1.969 1.888 1.891 1.895 1.912 1.955 2.016 2.071 2.108 2.130 2.150 2.180
Energía Intermedia ($/kWh) 0.719 0.690 0.691 0.692 0.699 0.714 0.736 0.756 0.770 0.778 0.785 0.796
Energía Base ($/kWh) 0.657 0.630 0.631 0.632 0.638 0.652 0.672 0.690 0.703 0.710 0.717 0.727
Northeast
Demand charge ($/kW) 124.850 119.710 119.900 120.140 121.230 123.910 127.800 131.280 133.630 135.030 136.300 138.240
Peak price ($/kWh) 1.901 1.823 1.826 1.830 1.846 1.887 1.947 1.999 2.035 2.057 2.076 2.105
Base price ($/kWh) 0.601 0.576 0.577 0.578 0.584 0.597 0.615 0.632 0.643 0.650 0.656 0.666
Northwest
Demand charge ($/kW) 126.670 121.450 121.640 121.880 122.990 125.710 129.660 133.190 135.570 136.990 138.280 140.240
Peak price ($/kWh) 1.894 1.816 1.819 1.822 1.839 1.879 1.938 1.991 2.027 2.048 2.067 2.097
Base price ($/kWh) 0.607 0.582 0.583 0.584 0.589 0.602 0.621 0.638 0.649 0.656 0.662 0.672
North
Demand charge ($/kW) 125.480 120.310 120.500 120.740 121.840 124.530 128.440 131.930 134.290 135.700 136.980 138.930
Peak price ($/kWh) 1.911 1.833 1.835 1.839 1.856 1.897 1.956 2.010 2.046 2.067 2.087 2.116
Base price ($/kWh) 0.598 0.574 0.575 0.576 0.581 0.594 0.612 0.629 0.640 0.647 0.653 0.662
Peninsular
Demand charge ($/kW) 129.180 123.860 124.060 124.310 125.440 128.210 132.240 135.840 138.270 139.720 141.030 143.030
Peak price ($/kWh) 1.878 1.800 1.803 1.807 1.823 1.864 1.922 1.974 2.010 2.031 2.050 2.079
Base price ($/kWh) 0.603 0.578 0.579 0.580 0.585 0.598 0.617 0.634 0.645 0.652 0.658 0.667
South
Demand charge ($/kW) 127.010 121.780 121.970 122.210 123.320 126.050 130.010 133.550 135.940 137.370 138.660 140.630
Peak price ($/kWh) 1.906 1.828 1.831 1.834 1.851 1.892 1.951 2.005 2.040 2.062 2.081 2.111
Base price ($/kWh) 0.614 0.588 0.589 0.590 0.596 0.609 0.628 0.645 0.657 0.664 0.670 0.679
115
Annex
Level transmission
Tariff H-T
Baja California
Demand charge ($/kW) 140.180 134.400 134.620 134.890 136.120 139.130 143.500 147.400 150.040 151.620 153.050 155.220
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.726 2.614 2.618 2.623 2.647 2.706 2.791 2.867 2.918 2.949 2.976 3.019
Base price ($/kWh) 0.557 0.534 0.535 0.536 0.541 0.553 0.571 0.586 0.597 0.603 0.609 0.617
Baja California Sur
Demand charge ($/kW) 124.800 119.660 119.850 120.090 121.180 123.860 127.750 131.220 133.570 134.970 136.240 138.170
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.195 2.104 2.108 2.112 2.131 2.178 2.247 2.308 2.349 2.374 2.396 2.430
Base price ($/kWh) 0.678 0.650 0.651 0.652 0.658 0.672 0.694 0.712 0.725 0.733 0.740 0.750
Central
Demand charge ($/kW) 73.800 70.760 70.870 71.010 71.660 73.240 75.540 77.590 78.980 79.810 80.560 81.700
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.712 2.600 2.605 2.610 2.633 2.692 2.776 2.852 2.903 2.933 2.961 3.003
Base price ($/kWh) 0.639 0.613 0.614 0.615 0.621 0.635 0.655 0.672 0.684 0.692 0.698 0.708
Northeast
Demand charge ($/kW) 73.800 70.760 70.870 71.010 71.660 73.240 75.540 77.590 78.980 79.810 80.560 81.700
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.650 2.540 2.545 2.550 2.573 2.630 2.712 2.786 2.836 2.866 2.893 2.934
Base price ($/kWh) 0.573 0.549 0.550 0.551 0.556 0.569 0.587 0.603 0.613 0.620 0.626 0.635
Northwest
Demand charge ($/kW) 73.800 70.760 70.870 71.010 71.660 73.240 75.540 77.590 78.980 79.810 80.560 81.700
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.634 2.526 2.530 2.535 2.558 2.614 2.696 2.770 2.819 2.849 2.876 2.917
Base price ($/kWh) 0.585 0.561 0.562 0.563 0.568 0.581 0.599 0.615 0.626 0.633 0.639 0.648
North
Demand charge ($/kW) 73.800 70.760 70.870 71.010 71.660 73.240 75.540 77.590 78.980 79.810 80.560 81.700
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.651 2.542 2.546 2.551 2.574 2.631 2.714 2.787 2.837 2.867 2.894 2.935
Base price ($/kWh) 0.569 0.546 0.547 0.548 0.553 0.565 0.583 0.598 0.609 0.615 0.621 0.630
Peninsular
Demand charge ($/kW) 73.800 70.760 70.870 71.010 71.660 73.240 75.540 77.590 78.980 79.810 80.560 81.700
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.582 2.475 2.479 2.484 2.507 2.562 2.643 2.714 2.763 2.792 2.818 2.858
Base price ($/kWh) 0.569 0.545 0.546 0.547 0.552 0.565 0.582 0.598 0.609 0.615 0.621 0.630
South
Demand charge ($/kW) 73.800 70.760 70.870 71.010 71.660 73.240 75.540 77.590 78.980 79.810 80.560 81.700
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.648 2.539 2.543 2.548 2.571 2.628 2.711 2.784 2.834 2.864 2.891 2.932
Base price ($/kWh) 0.596 0.572 0.572 0.574 0.579 0.592 0.610 0.627 0.638 0.645 0.651 0.660
116
Annex
Tariff H-TL
Baja California
Demand charge ($/kW) 210.340 201.670 201.990 202.390 204.230 208.740 215.290 221.150 225.110 227.470 229.610 232.870
Peak price ($/kWh) 2.052 1.967 1.970 1.974 1.992 2.036 2.100 2.157 2.196 2.219 2.240 2.271
Base price ($/kWh) 0.557 0.534 0.535 0.536 0.541 0.553 0.571 0.586 0.597 0.603 0.609 0.617
Baja California Sur
Demand charge ($/kW) 187.160 179.450 179.740 180.100 181.740 185.760 191.590 196.800 200.320 202.420 204.320 207.220
Peak price ($/kWh) 1.813 1.738 1.741 1.745 1.761 1.800 1.856 1.907 1.941 1.961 1.979 2.008
Base price ($/kWh) 0.678 0.650 0.651 0.652 0.658 0.672 0.694 0.712 0.725 0.733 0.740 0.750
Central
Demand charge ($/kW) 110.710 106.150 106.320 106.530 107.500 109.880 113.330 116.410 118.490 119.730 120.860 122.580
Peak price ($/kWh) 1.927 1.847 1.850 1.854 1.871 1.912 1.972 2.026 2.062 2.084 2.103 2.133
Base price ($/kWh) 0.639 0.613 0.614 0.615 0.621 0.635 0.655 0.672 0.684 0.692 0.698 0.708
Northeast
Demand charge ($/kW) 110.710 106.150 106.320 106.530 107.500 109.880 113.330 116.410 118.490 119.730 120.860 122.580
Peak price ($/kWh) 1.865 1.788 1.791 1.794 1.811 1.851 1.909 1.961 1.996 2.017 2.036 2.065
Base price ($/kWh) 0.573 0.549 0.550 0.551 0.556 0.569 0.587 0.603 0.613 0.620 0.626 0.635
Northwest
Demand charge ($/kW) 110.710 106.150 106.320 106.530 107.500 109.880 113.330 116.410 118.490 119.730 120.860 122.580
Peak price ($/kWh) 1.848 1.772 1.775 1.779 1.795 1.835 1.892 1.944 1.978 1.999 2.018 2.047
Base price ($/kWh) 0.585 0.561 0.562 0.563 0.568 0.581 0.599 0.615 0.626 0.633 0.639 0.648
North
Demand charge ($/kW) 110.710 106.150 106.320 106.530 107.500 109.880 113.330 116.410 118.490 119.730 120.860 122.580
Peak price ($/kWh) 1.865 1.788 1.791 1.795 1.811 1.851 1.909 1.961 1.996 2.017 2.036 2.065
Base price ($/kWh) 0.569 0.546 0.547 0.548 0.553 0.565 0.583 0.598 0.609 0.615 0.621 0.630
Peninsular
Demand charge ($/kW) 110.710 106.150 106.320 106.530 107.500 109.880 113.330 116.410 118.490 119.730 120.860 122.580
Peak price ($/kWh) 1.796 1.722 1.724 1.728 1.744 1.782 1.838 1.888 1.922 1.942 1.960 1.988
Base price ($/kWh) 0.569 0.545 0.546 0.547 0.552 0.565 0.582 0.598 0.609 0.615 0.621 0.630
South
Demand charge ($/kW) 110.710 106.150 106.320 106.530 107.500 109.880 113.330 116.410 118.490 119.730 120.860 122.580
Peak price ($/kWh) 1.863 1.786 1.789 1.793 1.809 1.849 1.907 1.959 1.994 2.015 2.034 2.063
Base price ($/kWh) 0.596 0.572 0.572 0.574 0.579 0.592 0.610 0.627 0.638 0.645 0.651 0.660
117
Annex
Annex 9: Solar radiation data of selected cities
Radiation [kWh/m2/d]
Tariff City
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average
Durango 4.4 5.4 6.5 7.0 7.5 6.8 6.0 5.6 5.7 5.1 4.8 3.9 5.7
Oaxaca 4.9 5.7 5.8 5.5 6.0 5.4 5.9 5.6 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.4 5.3
1
Guadalajara 4.6 5.5 6.3 7.4 7.7 5.9 5.3 5.3 5.2 4.9 4.8 4.0 5.6
Puebla 4.9 5.5 6.2 6.4 6.1 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.2 5.0 4.7 4.4 5.5
Distrito Federal 4.4 5.2 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.4 4.2 3.8 4.9
Cuautla 3.2 3.9 4.7 5.5 5.7 5.4 5.4 5.3 4.6 4.4 3.7 3.1 4.6
Tepic 3.9 4.3 4.8 5.5 6.1 5.3 4.9 5.3 4.4 4.4 4.0 4.8 4.8
1A
Nogales 3.1 3.9 5.2 6.5 7.0 7.0 6.1 5.6 5.2 4.3 3.5 2.9 5.5
Los Tuxtlas 3.5 4.4 5.6 6.6 6.5 5.8 5.8 5.6 4.9 4.6 3.9 3.4 5.5
Chihuahua 4.1 4.9 6.0 7.4 8.2 8.1 6.8 6.2 5.7 5.2 4.6 3.8 5.9
Acapulco 4.8 5.3 6.1 5.9 5.6 5.1 5.3 5.4 4.9 5.2 5.0 4.7 5.3
1B
Poza Rica 3.1 4.0 5.0 5.9 6.4 6.1 5.8 5.9 5.1 4.8 3.3 3.1 5.3
Riviera Maya 4.1 5.0 5.8 6.6 6.3 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.3 4.8 4.3 3.9 5.4
Cd. Juárez 3.1 3.9 5.2 6.4 6.9 7.0 6.4 5.6 5.0 4.2 3.5 2.9 5.0
Monterrey 3.2 3.6 4.1 4.3 4.8 5.5 6.1 5.6 5.0 3.8 3.3 3.0 4.4
1C
Tampico 3.3 4.1 4.7 6.4 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.6 3.7 3.2 4.5
Mérida 3.7 4.0 4.6 5.2 5.7 5.5 5.7 5.5 5.0 4.2 3.8 3.4 4.7
Mazatlán 3.9 4.8 5.4 5.7 5.7 5.6 4.8 4.9 4.7 5.0 4.5 3.9 4.9
La Paz 4.4 5.5 6.0 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.3 6.2 5.9 5.8 4.9 4.2 5.7
1D
Matamoros 2.9 3.9 5.3 6.0 6.7 7.1 6.8 6.7 5.5 5.1 3.7 2.8 5.3
Cd. Altamirano 4.8 5.5 6.4 6.7 6.6 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.2 5.3 5.0 4.1 4.9
118
Annex
Radiation [kWh/m2/d]
Tariff City
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average
Culiacán 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.4 6.2 6.2 5.4 5.1 5.2 4.6 4.2 3.4 4.9
Guaymas 4.5 5.7 6.5 7.2 7.3 6.8 5.9 5.8 6.3 5.9 5.1 5.6 6.0
1E
Reynosa 2.6 3.5 4.6 5.3 5.7 6.1 6.1 5.7 4.8 4.4 3.3 2.5 4.7
Piedras Negras 3.1 3.6 4.2 4.5 4.8 6.0 6.7 6.3 4.9 4.1 3.3 2.9 4.5
Mexicali 4.1 4.4 5.0 5.6 6.6 7.3 7.0 6.1 6.1 5.5 4.5 3.9 5.5
San Luis Río Colorado 3.4 3.8 4.9 6.2 7.3 7.4 6.9 6.1 5.1 4.1 3.3 2.8 5.0
1F
Cd. Obregón 3.6 4.5 5.9 7.1 7.7 7.5 6.1 5.8 5.6 4.9 4.1 3.4 6.0
Hermosillo 4.0 4.6 5.4 6.6 8.3 8.6 6.9 6.6 6.7 6.0 4.7 3.9 6.0
Average 5.2
Source: www.conae.gob.mx/wb/CONAE/CONA_1433_irradiacion_en_la_re
119
Annex
Annex 10: DAC regions for selected cities (residential sector)
Tariff City DAC region
Durango North & Northeast
Oaxaca South & Peninsula

1
Guadalajara North & Northeast
Puebla South & Peninsula
Distrito Federal Central
Cuautla South & Peninsula
Tepic North & Northeast

1A
Nogales North & Northeast
Los Tuxtlas South & Peninsula
Chihuahua North & Northeast
Acapulco South & Peninsula

1B
Poza Rica North & Northeast
Riviera Maya South & Peninsula
Cd. Juárez North & Northeast
Monterrey North & Northeast

1C
Tampico North & Northeast
Mérida South & Peninsula
Mazatlán Northwest
La Paz Baja California South

1D
Matamoros North & Northeast
Cd. Altamirano South & Peninsula
120
Annex
Tariff City DAC region
Culiacán Northwest
Guaymas Northwest
1E
Reynosa North & Northeast
Piedras Negras North & Northeast
Mexicali Baja California
San Luis Río Colorado Northwest

1F
Cd. Obregón Northwest
Hermosillo Northwest
Source: Own display
121
Annex
Annex 11: PV system sizes for full supply (residential sector)
Average Average Required

Efficiency Annual
consumption annually Required installed
Radiation loss required
Tariff City per month of generated PV area PV
factor Lt electricity
PV user electricity output
[kWh/month] [kWh/m2/d] [%] [kWh/m2/a] [kWh/a] [m2] [kW p]
140 5.73 244.07 1,380 5.7 0.90
249 5.73 244.07 2,688 11.0 1.76
Durango
250 5.73 244.07 2,700 11.1 1.77
300 5.73 244.07 3,300 13.5 2.16
140 5.33 227.02 1,380 6.1 0.97
249 5.33 227.02 2,688 11.8 1.89
Oaxaca
250 5.33 227.02 2,700 11.9 1.90
300 5.33 227.02 3,300 14.5 2.33
140 5.58 237.67 1,380 5.8 0.93
249 5.58 237.67 2,688 11.3 1.81
1 Guadalajara
250 5.58 237.67 2,700 11.4 1.82
300 5.58 237.67 3,300 13.9 2.22
140 5.48 233.41 1,380 5.9 0.95
249 5.48 233.41 2,688 11.5 1.84
Puebla
250 5.48 233.41 2,700 11.6 1.85
300 5.48 233.41 3,300 14.1 2.26
140 4.91 209.25 1,380 6.6 1.06
Distrito 249 4.91 209.25 2,688 12.8 2.06
Federal 250 4.91 209.25 2,700 12.9 2.06
300 4.91 209.25 3,300 15.8 2.52
150 4.58 195.04 1,500 7.7 1.23
299 4.58 195.04 3,288 16.9 2.70
Cuautla
300 4.58 195.04 3,300 16.9 2.71
360 4.58 195.04 4,020 20.6 3.30
150 4.81 204.99 1,500 7.3 1.17
299 4.81 204.99 3,288 16.0 2.57
Tepic
300 4.81 204.99 3,300 16.1 2.58
360 4.81 204.99 4,020 19.6 3.14
1A
150 5.03 214.30 1,500 7.0 1.12
299 5.03 214.30 3,288 15.3 2.45
Nogales
300 5.03 214.30 3,300 15.4 2.46
360 5.03 214.30 4,020 18.8 3.00
150 5.05 215.29 1,500 7.0 1.11
299 5.05 215.29 3,288 15.3 2.44
Los Tuxtlas
300 5.05 215.29 3,300 15.3 2.45
360 5.05 215.29 4,020 18.7 2.99
122
Annex

Efficiency Annual

200 5.92 -0.8% 250.35 2,100 8.4 1.34
399 5.92 -0.8% 250.35 4,488 17.9 2.87
Chihuahua
400 5.92 -0.8% 250.35 4,500 18.0 2.88
528 5.92 -0.8% 250.35 6,036 24.1 3.86
200 5.28 -0.8% 223.20 2,100 9.4 1.51
399 5.28 -0.8% 223.20 4,488 20.1 3.22
Acapulco
400 5.28 -0.8% 223.20 4,500 20.2 3.23
528 5.28 -0.8% 223.20 6,036 27.0 4.33
1B
200 4.87 -0.8% 206.20 2,100 10.2 1.63
399 4.87 -0.8% 206.20 4,488 21.8 3.48
Poza Rica
400 4.87 -0.8% 206.20 4,500 21.8 3.49
528 4.87 -0.8% 206.20 6,036 29.3 4.68
200 5.35 -0.8% 226.51 2,100 9.3 1.48
399 5.35 -0.8% 226.51 4,488 19.8 3.17
Riviera Maya
400 5.35 -0.8% 226.51 4,500 19.9 3.18
528 5.35 -0.8% 226.51 6,036 26.6 4.26
238 5.01 -1.3% 210.99 2,550 12.1 1.93
849 5.01 -1.3% 210.99 9,888 46.9 7.50
Cd. Juárez
850 5.01 -1.3% 210.99 9,900 46.9 7.51
1067 5.01 -1.3% 210.99 12,504 59.3 9.48
238 4.36 -1.3% 183.48 2,550 13.9 2.22
849 4.36 -1.3% 183.48 9,888 53.9 8.62
Monterrey
850 4.36 -1.3% 183.48 9,900 54.0 8.63
1067 4.36 -1.3% 183.48 12,504 68.1 10.90
1C
238 4.53 -1.3% 190.50 2,550 13.4 2.14
849 4.53 -1.3% 190.50 9,888 51.9 8.30
Tampico
850 4.53 -1.3% 190.50 9,900 52.0 8.32
1067 4.53 -1.3% 190.50 12,504 65.6 10.50
238 4.69 -1.3% 197.51 2,550 12.9 2.07
849 4.69 -1.3% 197.51 9,888 50.1 8.01
Mérida
850 4.69 -1.3% 197.51 9,900 50.1 8.02
1067 4.69 -1.3% 197.51 12,504 63.3 10.13
123
Annex

Efficiency Annual

300 4.91 -1.5% 206.11 3,300 16.0 2.56
999 4.91 -1.5% 206.11 11,688 56.7 9.07
Mazatlán
1000 4.91 -1.5% 206.11 11,700 56.8 9.08
1320 4.91 -1.5% 206.11 15,540 75.4 12.06
300 5.74 -1.5% 241.11 3,300 13.7 2.19
999 5.74 -1.5% 241.11 11,688 48.5 7.76
La Paz
1000 5.74 -1.5% 241.11 11,700 48.5 7.76
1320 5.74 -1.5% 241.11 15,540 64.5 10.31
1D
300 5.21 -1.5% 218.68 3,300 15.1 2.41
999 5.21 -1.5% 218.68 11,688 53.4 8.55
Matamoros
1000 5.21 -1.5% 218.68 11,700 53.5 8.56
1320 5.21 -1.5% 218.68 15,540 71.1 11.37
300 5.58 -1.5% 234.49 3,300 14.1 2.25
999 5.58 -1.5% 234.49 11,688 49.8 7.97
Cd. Altamirano
1000 5.58 -1.5% 234.49 11,700 49.9 7.98
1320 5.58 -1.5% 234.49 15,540 66.3 10.60
500 4.86 -1.8% 203.50 5,700 28.0 4.48
1999 4.86 -1.8% 203.50 23,688 116.4 18.62
Culiacán
2000 4.86 -1.8% 203.50 23,700 116.5 18.63
2640 4.86 -1.8% 203.50 31,380 154.2 24.67
500 6.05 -1.8% 253.41 5,700 22.5 3.60
1999 6.05 -1.8% 253.41 23,688 93.5 14.96
Guaymas
2000 6.05 -1.8% 253.41 23,700 93.5 14.96
2640 6.05 -1.8% 253.41 31,380 123.8 19.81
1E
500 4.54 -1.8% 190.27 5,700 30.0 4.79
1999 4.54 -1.8% 190.27 23,688 124.5 19.92
Reynosa
2000 4.54 -1.8% 190.27 23,700 124.6 19.93
2640 4.54 -1.8% 190.27 31,380 164.9 26.39
500 4.53 -1.8% 189.88 5,700 30.0 4.80
Piedras 1999 4.53 -1.8% 189.88 23,688 124.8 19.96
Negras 2000 4.53 -1.8% 189.88 23,700 124.8 19.97
2640 4.53 -1.8% 189.88 31,380 165.3 26.44
124
Annex

Efficiency Annual

725 5.51 -2.0% 230.13 8,400 36.5 5.84
2499 5.51 -2.0% 230.13 29,688 129.0 20.64
Mexicali
2750 5.51 -2.0% 230.13 32,700 142.1 22.73
870 5.51 -2.0% 230.13 10,140 44.1 7.05
725 5.10 -2.0% 213.14 8,400 39.4 6.31
San Luis Rio 2499 5.10 -2.0% 213.14 29,688 139.3 22.29
Colorado 2750 5.10 -2.0% 213.14 32,700 153.4 24.55
870 5.10 -2.0% 213.14 10,140 47.6 7.61
1F
725 5.51 -2.0% 230.20 8,400 36.5 5.84
2499 5.51 -2.0% 230.20 29,688 129.0 20.63
Cd. Obregón
2750 5.51 -2.0% 230.20 32,700 142.0 22.73
870 5.51 -2.0% 230.20 10,140 44.0 7.05
725 6.03 -2.0% 251.72 8,400 33.4 5.34
2499 6.03 -2.0% 251.72 29,688 117.9 18.87
Hermosillo
2750 6.03 -2.0% 251.72 32,700 129.9 20.78
870 6.03 -2.0% 251.72 10,140 40.3 6.45
Source: Own display
125
Annex
Annex 12: PV system sizes for partial supply (residential sector)

Average
Efficiency Required
consume Required
loss Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec installed
Tariff City per month of PV area
factor Lt PV output
PV user
[kWh/month] [%] [m2] [m2] [kW p]
249 7.07 5.76 4.79 4.44 4.15 4.57 5.18 5.55 5.46 6.10 6.48 7.98 5.51 0.89
Durango 250 7.13 5.81 4.83 4.48 4.19 4.62 5.23 5.61 5.51 6.16 6.54 8.05 5.56 0.89
300 3.24 2.64 2.20 2.04 1.90 2.10 2.38 2.55 2.50 2.80 2.97 3.66 3.66 0.59
249 6.35 5.46 5.36 5.66 5.18 5.76 5.27 5.55 6.22 6.35 6.48 7.07 5.71 0.92
Oaxaca 250 6.41 5.51 5.41 5.71 5.23 5.81 5.32 5.61 6.28 6.41 6.54 7.13 5.76 0.93
300 2.91 2.50 2.46 2.59 2.38 2.64 2.42 2.55 2.85 2.91 2.97 3.24 2.62 0.42
249 6.76 5.66 4.94 4.20 4.04 5.27 5.87 5.87 5.98 6.35 6.48 7.78 5.87 0.94
1 Guadalajara 250 6.82 5.71 4.98 4.24 4.08 5.32 5.92 5.92 6.04 6.41 6.54 7.85 5.92 0.95
300 3.10 2.59 2.26 1.93 1.85 2.42 2.69 2.69 2.74 2.91 2.97 3.57 2.69 0.44
249 6.35 5.66 5.02 4.86 5.10 5.46 5.36 5.36 5.98 6.22 6.62 7.07 5.56 0.89
Puebla 250 6.41 5.71 5.06 4.91 5.15 5.51 5.41 5.41 6.04 6.28 6.68 7.13 5.61 0.90
300 2.91 2.59 2.30 2.23 2.34 2.50 2.46 2.46 2.74 2.85 3.04 3.24 2.55 0.41
249 7.07 5.98 5.36 5.36 5.46 6.10 6.35 6.35 6.62 7.07 7.41 8.19 6.35 1.02
Distrito
250 7.13 6.04 5.41 5.41 5.51 6.16 6.41 6.41 6.68 7.13 7.47 8.26 6.41 1.03
Federal
300 3.24 2.74 2.46 2.46 2.50 2.80 2.91 2.91 3.04 3.24 3.40 3.76 2.91 0.47
299 13.29 10.90 9.05 7.73 7.46 7.87 7.87 8.02 9.24 9.66 11.49 13.72 9.15 1.47
Cuautla 300 13.38 10.98 9.11 7.78 7.51 7.93 7.93 8.08 9.31 9.73 11.57 13.81 9.21 1.48
360 5.35 4.39 3.64 3.11 3.00 3.17 3.17 3.23 3.72 3.89 4.63 5.52 3.68 0.59
299 10.90 9.89 8.86 7.73 6.97 8.02 8.68 8.02 9.66 9.66 10.63 8.86 8.86 1.42
Tepic 300 10.98 9.96 8.92 7.78 7.02 8.08 8.74 8.08 9.73 9.73 10.70 8.92 8.92 1.43
360 4.39 3.98 3.57 3.11 2.81 3.23 3.49 3.23 3.89 3.89 4.28 3.57 3.57 0.58
1A
299 13.72 10.90 8.18 6.54 6.07 6.07 6.97 7.59 8.18 9.89 12.15 14.66 8.18 1.31
Nogales 300 13.81 10.98 8.23 6.59 6.11 6.11 7.02 7.64 8.23 9.96 12.23 14.76 8.23 1.32
360 5.52 4.39 3.29 2.63 2.44 2.44 2.81 3.06 3.29 3.98 4.89 5.90 3.29 0.53
299 12.15 9.66 7.59 6.44 6.54 7.33 7.33 7.59 8.68 9.24 10.90 12.51 8.14 1.31
Los Tuxtlas 300 12.23 9.73 7.64 6.49 6.59 7.38 7.38 7.64 8.74 9.31 10.98 12.59 8.19 1.32
360 4.89 3.89 3.06 2.59 2.63 2.95 2.95 3.06 3.49 3.72 4.39 5.04 3.28 0.53
399 -1.5% 12.11 10.13 8.28 6.71 6.15 6.22 7.41 8.13 8.84 9.69 10.80 13.07 7.77 1.25
Chihuahua 400 -1.5% 12.18 10.19 8.32 6.75 6.18 6.26 7.46 8.18 8.90 9.75 10.86 13.14 7.82 1.26
528 -1.5% 5.57 4.66 3.81 3.09 6.22 6.30 7.50 8.22 8.95 9.81 4.96 6.01 7.86 1.26
399 -1.5% 10.35 9.37 8.14 8.54 9.00 9.89 9.51 9.34 10.29 9.55 9.93 10.57 9.42 1.51
Acapulco 400 -1.5% 10.40 9.42 8.19 8.59 9.05 9.94 9.57 9.39 10.35 9.60 9.99 10.63 9.48 1.52
528 -1.5% 4.76 4.31 3.74 8.64 9.11 10.00 9.62 9.44 10.41 4.39 4.57 4.86 9.53 1.53
1B
399 -1.5% 16.02 12.38 9.91 8.54 7.88 8.26 8.69 8.54 9.89 10.35 15.05 16.23 8.54 1.37
Poza Rica 400 -1.5% 16.11 12.45 9.97 8.59 7.92 8.31 8.74 8.59 9.94 10.40 15.13 16.32 8.59 1.38
528 -1.5% 7.36 5.69 4.56 8.64 7.97 8.36 8.79 8.64 10.00 4.76 6.92 7.46 8.64 1.39
399 -1.5% 12.14 9.93 8.56 7.64 8.00 8.31 8.31 8.39 9.51 10.35 11.55 12.73 8.31 1.33
Riviera Maya 400 -1.5% 12.21 9.99 8.61 7.68 8.05 8.35 8.35 8.44 9.57 10.40 11.61 12.81 8.35 1.34
528 -1.5% 5.58 4.57 3.94 7.73 8.09 8.40 8.40 8.48 9.62 4.76 5.31 5.85 8.40 1.35
849 -2.5% 50.54 40.17 30.13 24.48 23.29 22.86 25.11 28.70 32.07 38.26 44.77 54.03 26.90 4.31
Cd. Juárez 850 -2.5% 50.63 40.25 30.19 24.53 23.33 22.90 25.15 28.75 32.13 38.33 44.85 54.13 26.95 4.32
1067 -2.5% 11.05 8.78 6.59 5.35 13.32 13.07 14.36 16.41 18.35 21.88 9.78 11.81 15.39 2.47
849 -2.5% 48.96 43.52 38.21 36.44 33.48 29.22 26.34 28.70 32.14 42.29 47.48 52.23 30.68 4.91
Monterrey 850 -2.5% 49.05 43.60 38.28 36.50 33.54 29.27 26.39 28.75 32.20 42.37 47.56 52.32 30.73 4.92
1067 -2.5% 10.70 9.51 8.35 7.96 19.15 16.71 15.07 16.41 18.38 24.19 10.38 11.42 17.55 2.81
1C
849 -2.5% 47.48 38.21 33.34 24.48 32.14 32.79 32.79 32.79 34.93 34.93 42.35 48.96 32.79 5.25
Tampico 850 -2.5% 47.56 38.28 33.40 24.53 32.20 32.85 32.85 32.85 35.00 35.00 42.42 49.05 32.85 5.26
1067 -2.5% 10.38 8.35 7.29 14.00 18.38 18.76 18.76 18.76 19.98 7.64 9.26 10.70 18.76 3.01
849 -2.5% 42.35 39.17 34.06 30.90 28.19 29.22 28.19 29.22 32.14 37.30 41.23 46.08 29.22 4.68
Mérida 850 -2.5% 42.42 39.24 34.12 30.96 28.24 29.27 28.24 29.27 32.20 37.37 41.31 46.17 29.27 4.69
1067 -2.5% 9.26 8.56 7.44 17.67 16.12 16.71 16.12 16.71 18.38 8.15 9.01 10.07 16.71 2.68
126
Annex
Average
Efficiency Required
consume Required
loss Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec installed
Tariff City per month of PV area
factor Lt PV output
PV user
[kWh/month] [%] [m2] [m2] [kW p]
999 -3.0% 43.83 35.61 31.66 29.99 30.92 31.47 36.72 35.97 37.50 35.25 37.99 43.83 35.61 5.70
Mazatlán 1000 -3.0% 43.91 35.67 31.71 30.04 30.97 31.52 36.78 36.03 37.56 35.31 38.05 43.91 35.67 5.71
1320 -3.0% 14.64 11.89 10.57 10.01 22.71 23.12 26.97 26.42 27.54 25.89 12.68 14.64 26.16 4.19
999 -3.0% 38.85 31.08 28.49 25.90 27.11 26.70 27.97 28.42 29.87 30.39 34.89 40.70 28.20 4.52
La Paz 1000 -3.0% 38.92 31.13 28.54 25.94 27.16 26.75 28.02 28.47 29.92 30.44 34.95 40.77 28.25 4.52
1320 -3.0% 12.97 10.38 9.51 8.65 19.92 19.61 20.55 20.88 21.94 22.32 11.65 13.59 20.71 3.32
1D
999 -3.0% 58.95 43.83 32.25 28.30 26.30 25.00 25.92 26.30 32.04 34.56 46.20 61.05 26.30 4.21
Matamoros 1000 -3.0% 59.05 43.91 32.31 28.35 26.35 25.04 25.96 26.35 32.10 34.61 46.28 61.15 26.35 4.22
1320 -3.0% 19.68 14.64 10.77 9.45 19.32 18.36 19.04 19.32 23.54 25.38 15.43 20.38 19.32 3.10
999 -3.0% 35.61 31.08 26.71 26.30 26.70 30.92 29.87 30.39 33.89 32.25 33.92 42.00 30.13 4.83
Cd.
1000 -3.0% 35.67 31.13 26.76 26.35 26.75 30.97 29.92 30.44 33.95 32.31 33.97 42.07 30.18 4.83
Altamirano
1320 -3.0% 11.89 10.38 8.92 19.32 19.61 22.71 21.94 22.32 24.90 10.77 11.32 14.02 22.13 3.55
1999 -3.5% 99.01 84.87 74.26 66.01 59.58 59.58 68.40 72.43 71.03 80.30 84.87 104.84 69.72 11.16
Culiacán 2000 -3.5% 99.09 84.94 74.32 66.06 59.62 59.62 68.46 72.49 71.09 80.36 84.94 104.92 69.77 11.17
2640 -3.5% 31.71 27.18 23.78 21.14 41.98 41.98 48.19 51.03 50.05 56.58 27.18 33.58 49.12 7.86
1999 -3.5% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.60 54.32 62.61 63.69 58.63 62.61 0.00 0.00 60.62 9.70
Guaymas 2000 -3.5% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.64 54.36 62.66 63.74 58.68 62.66 0.00 0.00 60.67 9.71
2640 -3.5% 25.37 20.03 17.56 15.85 35.65 38.27 44.11 44.87 41.31 44.11 22.38 20.38 42.71 6.84
1E
1999 -3.5% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.80 61.05 60.95 64.80 76.95 83.95 0.00 0.00 64.80 10.37
Reynosa 2000 -3.5% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.86 61.10 61.00 64.86 77.02 84.02 0.00 0.00 64.86 10.38
2640 -3.5% 25.13 25.13 25.13 25.13 45.66 43.02 42.95 45.66 54.22 59.15 25.13 25.13 45.66 7.31
1999 -3.5% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.95 61.56 55.13 58.63 75.38 90.09 0.00 0.00 68.47 10.96
Piedras
2000 -3.5% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.02 61.61 55.18 58.68 75.44 90.16 0.00 0.00 68.53 10.97
Negras
2640 -3.5% 36.82 31.71 27.18 25.37 54.22 43.38 38.84 41.31 53.11 63.48 34.59 39.36 48.24 7.72
2499 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.51 52.90 55.17 63.31 63.31 70.21 0.00 0.00 60.91 9.75
Mexicali 2750 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.08 73.30 76.44 87.72 87.72 97.29 0.00 0.00 84.40 13.51
870 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.81 9.77 10.19 11.70 11.70 12.97 0.00 0.00 11.25 1.81
2499 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.90 52.18 55.97 63.62 75.72 95.35 0.00 0.00 59.79 9.57
San Luis Rio
2750 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.30 72.31 77.55 88.16 104.92 132.12 0.00 0.00 82.85 13.26
Colorado
870 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.77 9.64 10.34 11.75 13.99 17.62 0.00 0.00 11.05 1.77
1F
2499 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.70 50.15 51.49 63.62 66.58 68.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.16 9.47
Cd. Obregón 2750 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.74 69.49 71.35 88.16 92.26 95.55 25.90 0.00 0.00 79.75 12.77
870 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.27 9.51 11.75 12.30 12.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.63 1.71
2499 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.53 44.90 55.97 58.51 57.64 64.36 0.00 0.00 56.80 9.09
Hermosillo 2750 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.47 62.22 77.55 81.08 79.87 89.18 0.00 0.00 78.71 12.60
870 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.60 8.30 10.34 10.81 10.65 11.89 0.00 0.00 10.49 1.68
Source: Own display
In the tariffs 1B to 1F PV systems were sized on the basis of the summer months only as this
results in more economic PV system sizes due to the significantly higher range limits during
summer and the higher radiation values. The fields of the winter months which were not
considered for system sizing are shaded.
127
Annex
Annex 13: Courses of solar radiation
128
Annex
Source: http://smn.cna.gob.mx/productos/emas/
129
Annex
Annex 14: Calculated net present value sums of residential tariffs over 20 years (residential sector)
Tariff 1
Basic 1-75 20.986 21.054 21.122 21.189 21.257 21.324 21.392 21.460 21.527 21.595 21.662 21.730
Intermediate 24.839 24.907 24.974 25.042 25.109 25.177 25.245 25.312 25.380 25.447 25.515 25.582
Basic 1-75 20.986 21.054 21.122 21.189 21.257 21.324 21.392 21.460 21.527 21.595 21.662 21.730
Intermediate 76-125 34.538 34.639 34.741 34.842 34.944 35.045 35.146 35.248 35.349 35.450 35.552 35.653
Exceeding 73.131 73.368 73.605 73.841 74.078 74.314 74.551 74.787 75.024 75.260 75.497 75.734
Tariff 1A
SUMMER SEASON
Basic 1-100 18.28 18.35 18.42 18.49 18.55 18.62 18.69 18.76 18.82 18.89 18.96 19.03
Intermediate 21.70 21.76 21.83 21.90 21.97 22.03 22.10 22.17 22.24 22.30 22.37 22.44
Basic 1-100 18.28 18.35 18.42 18.49 18.55 18.62 18.69 18.76 18.82 18.89 18.96 19.03
Intermediate 101-150 27.44 27.54 27.64 27.75 27.85 27.95 28.05 28.15 28.25 28.35 28.46 28.56
Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73
WINTER SEASON
Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73
Intermediate 24.84 24.91 24.97 25.04 25.11 25.18 25.24 25.31 25.38 25.45 25.51 25.58
Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73
Intermediate 76-125 34.54 34.64 34.74 34.84 34.94 35.04 35.15 35.25 35.35 35.45 35.55 35.65
Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73
Tariff 1B
SUMMER SEASON
Basic 1-125 18.28 18.35 18.42 18.49 18.55 18.62 18.69 18.76 18.82 18.89 18.96 19.03
Intermediate 21.70 21.76 21.83 21.90 21.97 22.03 22.10 22.17 22.24 22.30 22.37 22.44
Basic 1-125 18.28 18.35 18.42 18.49 18.55 18.62 18.69 18.76 18.82 18.89 18.96 19.03
Intermediate 126-200 27.44 27.54 27.64 27.75 27.85 27.95 28.05 28.15 28.25 28.35 28.46 28.56
Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73
WINTER SEASON
Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73
Intermediate 24.84 24.91 24.97 25.04 25.11 25.18 25.24 25.31 25.38 25.45 25.51 25.58
Intermediate 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73
Intermediate 76-150 34.54 34.64 34.74 34.84 34.94 35.04 35.15 35.25 35.35 35.45 35.55 35.65
Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73
130
Annex
Tariff 1C
SUMMER SEASON
Basic 1-150 18.28 18.35 18.42 18.49 18.55 18.62 18.69 18.76 18.82 18.89 18.96 19.03
Intermediate 21.70 21.76 21.83 21.90 21.97 22.03 22.10 22.17 22.24 22.30 22.37 22.44
Basic 1-150 18.28 18.35 18.42 18.49 18.55 18.62 18.69 18.76 18.82 18.89 18.96 19.03
Intermediate 151-450 27.44 27.54 27.64 27.75 27.85 27.95 28.05 28.15 28.25 28.35 28.46 28.56
Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73
WINTER SEASON
Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73
Intermediate 24.84 24.91 24.97 25.04 25.11 25.18 25.24 25.31 25.38 25.45 25.51 25.58
Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73
Intermediate 76-150 34.54 34.64 34.74 34.84 34.94 35.04 35.15 35.25 35.35 35.45 35.55 35.65
Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73
Tariff 1D
SUMMER SEASON
Basic 1-175 18.28 18.35 18.42 18.49 18.55 18.62 18.69 18.76 18.82 18.89 18.96 19.03
Intermediate 21.70 21.76 21.83 21.90 21.97 22.03 22.10 22.17 22.24 22.30 22.37 22.44
Basic 1-175 18.28 18.35 18.42 18.49 18.55 18.62 18.69 18.76 18.82 18.89 18.96 19.03
Intermediate 176-600 27.44 27.54 27.64 27.75 27.85 27.95 28.05 28.15 28.25 28.35 28.46 28.56
Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73
WINTER SEASON
Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73
Intermediate 24.84 24.91 24.97 25.04 25.11 25.18 25.24 25.31 25.38 25.45 25.51 25.58
Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73
Intermediate 76-175 34.54 34.64 34.74 34.84 34.94 35.04 35.15 35.25 35.35 35.45 35.55 35.65
Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73
131
Annex
Tariff 1E
SUMMER SEASON
Basic 1-300 14.90 14.94 14.97 15.00 15.04 15.07 15.11 15.14 15.17 15.21 15.24 15.28
Intermediate 19.33 19.40 19.47 19.53 19.60 19.67 19.74 19.80 19.87 19.94 20.01 20.07
Basic 1-300 14.90 14.94 14.97 15.00 15.04 15.07 15.11 15.14 15.17 15.21 15.24 15.28
Intermediate 301-900 24.64 24.70 24.77 24.84 24.91 24.97 25.04 25.11 25.18 25.24 25.31 25.38
Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73
WINTER SEASON
Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73
Intermediate 76-200 24.84 24.91 24.97 25.04 25.11 25.18 25.24 25.31 25.38 25.45 25.51 25.58
Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73
Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73
Intermediate 76-200 34.54 34.64 34.74 34.84 34.94 35.04 35.15 35.25 35.35 35.45 35.55 35.65
Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73
Tariff 1F
SUMMER SEASON
Consumption of up to 1,200 kWh per month
Basic 1-300 14.90 14.94 14.97 15.00 15.04 15.07 15.11 15.14 15.17 15.21 15.24 15.28
Exceeding 19.33 19.40 19.47 19.53 19.60 19.67 19.74 19.80 19.87 19.94 20.01 20.07
Consumption exceeding 1,200 kWh per month
Basic 1-300 14.90 14.94 14.97 15.00 15.04 15.07 15.11 15.14 15.17 15.21 15.24 15.28
Intermediate Low 301-1,200 24.64 24.70 24.77 24.84 24.91 24.97 25.04 25.11 25.18 25.24 25.31 25.38
Intermediate High 1,201-2,500 45.96 46.10 46.23 46.37 46.50 46.64 46.81 46.97 47.14 47.31 47.48 47.65
Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73
WINTER SEASON
Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73
Intermediate 76-200 24.84 24.91 24.97 25.04 25.11 25.18 25.24 25.31 25.38 25.45 25.51 25.58
Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73
Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73
Intermediate 76-200 34.54 34.64 34.74 34.84 34.94 35.04 35.15 35.25 35.35 35.45 35.55 35.65
Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73
Source: Own display
132
Annex
Annex 15: Calculated net present value sums of the tariffs for low, medium and high voltage over 20 years
(industry and services sectors)
Tariff 2
Price per kWh ($/kWh)
Range Averaged Annual (+VAT) Sum
1 - 50 2.450 33.804 620
51 - 100 2.960 40.849 749
Exceeding 3.264 45.036 826
Fix charge ($)
Monthly 62.84 867.243 15,901
Tariff 3
Demand charge ($/kW)
Averaged Annual (+VAT) Sum
285.299 3,937.125 72186
Price per kWh ($/kWh)
1.796 24.791 455
Tariff O-M
Baja California
Demand charge ($/kW) 146.576 2,022.749 37,087
Price per kWh ($/kWh) 1.170 16.150 296
Central
Demand charge ($/kW) 175.476 2,421.563 44,399
Price per kWh ($/kWh) 1.308 18.046 331
Northeast
Demand charge ($/kW) 161.333 2,226.398 40,820
Price per kWh ($/kWh) 1.221 16.845 309
Tariff H-M
Baja California
Demand charge ($/kW) 262.216 3,618.586 66,346
Peak energy price [$/kWh] 3.584 49.454 907
Intermediate energy price [$/kWh] 0.992 13.685 251
Base energy price [$/kWh] 0.779 10.753 197
Central
Demand charge ($/kW) 181.757 2,508.242 45,988
Northeast
Demand charge ($/kW) 167.126 2,306.335 42,286
Tarifa H-MC
Demand charge ($/kW) 102.442 1,413.705 25,920
133
Annex
Level subtransmission
Tarifa H-S
Baja California
Demand charge ($/kW) 215.050 2,967.687 54,412
Peak energy price [$/kWh] 4.097 56.539 1,037
Central
Demand charge ($/kW) 121.486 1,676.500 30,738
Peak energy price [$/kWh] 3.975 54.851 1,006
Northeast
Demand charge ($/kW) 119.349 1,647.016 30,198
Tarifa H-SL
Baja California
Demand charge ($/kW) 322.434 4,449.586 81,582
Central
Demand charge ($/kW) 182.156 2,513.758 46,089
Northeast
Demand charge ($/kW) 179.061 2,471.048 45,306
134
Annex
Level transmission
Tarifa H-T
Baja California
Demand charge ($/kW) 201.052 2,774.522 50,870
Central
Demand charge ($/kW) 105.837 1,460.544 26,779
Peninsular
Demand charge ($/kW) 105.837 1,460.544 26,779
Tarifa H-TL
Baja California
Demand charge ($/kW) 301.649 4,162.758 76,323
Central
Demand charge ($/kW) 158.779 2,191.155 40,174
Peninsular
Demand charge ($/kW) 158.779 2,191.155 40,174
Source: Own display
135
Annex
Annex 16: Scenario 1 – Calculated costs of PV systems for full supply (residential sector)
Overall PV
CFE
Average O&M costs system
Overall PV minimum PV
consumption as net costs as
Radiation investment costs for generation
Tariff City per month of present net
costs consumption costs
PV user value present
of 25 kWh
value
[kWh/month] [kWh/m2/d] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$/kWh]
140 5.73 46,590 3,659 6,407 57,450 1.85
249 5.73 90,750 7,128 6,407 105,745 1.85
Durango
250 5.73 91,155 7,160 6,407 106,188 1.85
300 5.73 111,411 8,751 6,407 128,342 1.85
140 5.33 50,090 3,934 6,407 61,278 1.99
249 5.33 97,567 7,663 6,407 113,200 1.99
Oaxaca
250 5.33 98,002 7,698 6,407 113,677 1.99
300 5.33 119,780 9,408 6,407 137,494 1.99
140 5.58 47,844 3,758 6,407 58,821 1.90
249 5.58 93,191 7,320 6,407 108,415 1.90
1 Guadalajara
250 5.58 93,607 7,352 6,407 108,870 1.90
300 5.58 114,409 8,986 6,407 131,620 1.90
140 5.48 48,718 3,827 6,407 59,777 1.93
249 5.48 94,894 7,453 6,407 110,277 1.93
Puebla
250 5.48 95,317 7,487 6,407 110,740 1.93
300 5.48 116,499 9,150 6,407 133,905 1.93
140 4.91 54,342 4,268 6,407 65,928 2.16
Distrito 249 4.91 105,849 8,314 6,407 122,258 2.15
Federal 250 4.91 106,322 8,351 6,407 122,775 2.15
300 4.91 129,949 10,207 6,407 148,615 2.15
150 4.58 63,371 4,977 6,002 75,391 2.31
299 4.58 138,910 10,911 6,002 158,004 2.31
Cuautla
300 4.58 139,417 10,950 6,002 158,558 2.31
360 4.58 169,835 13,340 6,002 191,825 2.31
150 4.81 60,296 4,736 6,002 72,028 2.20
299 4.81 132,169 10,381 6,002 150,632 2.20
Tepic
300 4.81 132,651 10,419 6,002 151,159 2.20
360 4.81 161,593 12,692 6,002 182,811 2.20
1A
150 5.03 57,677 4,530 6,002 69,164 2.11
299 5.03 126,428 9,930 6,002 144,353 2.10
Nogales
300 5.03 126,889 9,967 6,002 144,858 2.10
360 5.03 154,574 12,141 6,002 175,135 2.10
150 5.05 57,411 4,509 6,002 68,873 2.10
299 5.05 125,844 9,884 6,002 143,714 2.09
Los Tuxtlas
300 5.05 126,303 9,921 6,002 144,217 2.09
360 5.05 153,860 12,085 6,002 174,354 2.09
136
Annex
Overall PV
CFE
of 25 kWh
value
200 5.92 69,120 5,429 6,002 81,679 1.80
399 5.92 147,719 11,603 6,002 167,638 1.80
Chihuahua
400 5.92 148,114 11,634 6,002 168,070 1.80
528 5.92 198,670 15,605 6,002 223,361 1.80
200 5.28 77,528 6,089 6,002 90,874 2.02
399 5.28 165,688 13,014 6,002 187,290 2.02
Acapulco
400 5.28 166,131 13,049 6,002 187,774 2.02
528 5.28 222,837 17,503 6,002 249,791 2.02
1B
200 4.87 83,918 6,591 6,002 97,862 2.19
399 4.87 179,344 14,087 6,002 202,225 2.19
Poza Rica
400 4.87 179,824 14,124 6,002 202,749 2.19
528 4.87 241,204 18,945 6,002 269,877 2.19
200 5.35 76,393 6,000 6,002 89,633 1.99
399 5.35 163,264 12,824 6,002 184,638 1.99
Riviera Maya
400 5.35 163,700 12,858 6,002 185,116 1.99
528 5.35 219,577 17,247 6,002 246,225 1.99
238 5.01 99,589 7,822 6,002 115,001 2.14
849 5.01 386,172 30,332 6,002 428,421 2.14
Cd. Juárez
850 5.01 386,641 30,369 6,002 428,933 2.14
1067 5.01 488,339 38,357 6,002 540,155 2.14
238 4.36 114,518 8,995 6,002 131,328 2.46
849 4.36 444,061 34,879 6,002 491,731 2.46
Monterrey
850 4.36 444,600 34,921 6,002 492,320 2.46
1067 4.36 561,543 44,106 6,002 620,214 2.46
1C
238 4.53 110,300 8,664 6,002 126,715 2.37
849 4.53 427,705 33,594 6,002 473,843 2.37
Tampico
850 4.53 428,224 33,635 6,002 474,411 2.37
1067 4.53 540,860 42,482 6,002 597,595 2.37
238 4.69 106,382 8,356 6,002 122,430 2.28
849 4.69 412,511 32,401 6,002 457,227 2.28
Mérida
850 4.69 413,012 32,440 6,002 457,774 2.28
1067 4.69 521,646 40,973 6,002 576,582 2.28
137
Annex
Overall PV
CFE
of 25 kWh
value
300 4.91 131,927 10,362 6,002 150,368 2.19
999 4.91 467,263 36,701 6,002 517,106 2.19
Mazatlán
1000 4.91 467,743 36,739 6,002 517,630 2.19
1320 4.91 621,258 48,797 6,002 685,522 2.19
300 5.74 112,780 8,858 6,002 129,427 1.87
999 5.74 399,445 31,375 6,002 442,937 1.87
La Paz
1000 5.74 399,856 31,407 6,002 443,386 1.87
1320 5.74 531,090 41,715 6,002 586,910 1.87
1D
300 5.21 124,348 9,767 6,002 142,079 2.06
999 5.21 440,419 34,593 6,002 487,748 2.06
Matamoros
1000 5.21 440,871 34,628 6,002 488,243 2.06
1320 5.21 585,568 45,994 6,002 646,489 2.06
300 5.58 115,961 9,108 6,002 132,906 1.92
Cd. 999 5.58 410,712 32,259 6,002 455,259 1.92
Altamirano 1000 5.58 411,133 32,293 6,002 455,720 1.92
1320 5.58 546,069 42,891 6,002 603,292 1.92
500 4.86 230,806 18,129 5,462 257,958 2.21
1999 4.86 959,180 75,339 5,462 1,054,541 2.21
Culiacán
2000 4.86 959,666 75,377 5,462 1,055,072 2.21
2640 4.86 1,270,646 99,803 5,462 1,395,174 2.21
500 6.05 185,344 14,558 5,462 208,239 1.78
1999 6.05 770,250 60,499 5,462 847,919 1.78
Guaymas
2000 6.05 770,641 60,530 5,462 848,346 1.78
2640 6.05 1,020,367 80,145 5,462 1,121,458 1.78
1E
500 4.54 246,853 19,389 5,462 275,508 2.37
1999 4.54 1,025,870 80,577 5,462 1,127,476 2.37
Reynosa
2000 4.54 1,026,390 80,618 5,462 1,128,044 2.37
2640 4.54 1,358,992 106,742 5,462 1,491,793 2.37
500 4.53 247,352 19,428 5,462 276,054 2.37
Piedras 1999 4.53 1,027,945 80,740 5,462 1,129,745 2.37
Negras 2000 4.53 1,028,465 80,781 5,462 1,130,314 2.37
2640 4.53 1,361,740 106,958 5,462 1,494,799 2.37
138
Annex
Overall PV
CFE
of 25 kWh
value
725 5.51 300,763 23,623 5,462 334,466 1.96
2499 5.51 1,062,983 83,492 5,462 1,168,064 1.96
Mexicali
2750 5.51 1,170,828 91,963 5,462 1,286,008 1.96
870 5.51 363,064 28,517 5,462 402,602 1.96
725 5.10 324,738 25,507 5,462 360,686 2.11
San Luis Rio 2499 5.10 1,147,716 90,148 5,462 1,260,732 2.11
Colorado 2750 5.10 1,264,157 99,293 5,462 1,388,078 2.11
870 5.10 392,005 30,790 5,462 434,252 2.11
1F
725 5.51 300,672 23,616 5,462 334,367 1.96
2499 5.51 1,062,661 83,467 5,462 1,167,712 1.96
Cd. Obregón
2750 5.51 1,170,473 91,935 5,462 1,285,621 1.96
870 5.51 362,954 28,508 5,462 402,481 1.96
725 6.03 274,971 21,598 5,462 306,260 1.79
2499 6.03 971,828 76,332 5,462 1,068,373 1.79
Hermosillo
2750 6.03 1,070,425 84,077 5,462 1,176,203 1.79
870 6.03 331,930 26,071 5,462 368,552 1.79
Source: Own display
139
Annex
Annex 17: Scenario 1 - Calculated costs of PV systems for partial supply (residential sector)
O&M Overall
Average PV system Electricity
Overall PV costs as costs as
consumption costs as costs as
Radiation investment net net
Tariff City per month of net present net present
costs present present
PV user value value
value value
[kWh/month] [kWh/m2/d] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

249 5.73 45,835 3,600 49,435 48,512 97,947
Durango 250 5.73 45,835 3,600 49,435 50,343 99,778
300 5.73 30,385 2,387 32,772 130,568 163,339
249 5.33 47,380 3,721 51,101 49,921 101,022
Oaxaca 250 5.33 47,895 3,762 51,657 49,849 101,506
300 5.33 21,630 1,699 23,329 209,608 232,937
249 5.58 48,410 3,802 52,212 46,417 98,629
1 Guadalajara 250 5.58 48,925 3,843 52,768 46,343 99,111
300 5.58 22,660 1,780 24,440 185,084 209,524
249 5.48 45,835 3,600 49,435 50,746 100,181
Puebla 250 5.48 46,350 3,641 49,991 50,661 100,652
300 5.48 21,115 1,658 22,773 209,247 232,020
249 4.91 52,530 4,126 56,656 48,143 104,799
Distrito
250 4.91 53,045 4,166 57,211 48,135 105,347
Federal
300 4.91 24,205 1,901 26,106 207,423 233,529
299 4.58 75,705 5,946 81,651 56,396 138,047
Cuautla 300 4.58 76,220 5,987 82,207 56,447 138,654
360 4.58 30,385 2,387 32,772 246,037 278,809
299 4.81 73,130 5,744 78,874 50,628 129,502
Tepic 300 4.81 73,645 5,784 79,429 50,634 130,064
360 4.81 29,870 2,346 32,216 232,466 264,682
1A
299 5.03 67,465 5,299 72,764 59,609 132,373
Nogales 300 5.03 67,980 5,340 73,320 59,643 132,962
360 5.03 27,295 2,144 29,439 234,405 263,844
299 5.05 67,465 5,299 72,764 58,527 131,291
Los Tuxtlas 300 5.05 67,980 5,340 73,320 58,529 131,849
360 5.05 27,295 2,144 29,439 246,559 275,998
140
Annex
O&M Overall
PV user value value
value value
[kWh/month] [kWh/m2/d] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

399 5.92 64,375 5,056 69,431 108,686 178,117
Chihuahua 400 5.92 64,890 5,097 69,987 108,536 178,522
528 5.92 64,890 5,097 69,987 269,629 339,616
399 5.28 77,765 6,108 83,873 93,748 177,622
Acapulco 400 5.28 78,280 6,149 84,429 93,652 178,080
528 5.28 78,795 6,189 84,984 255,163 340,147
1B
399 4.87 70,555 5,542 76,097 116,860 192,957
Poza Rica 400 4.87 71,070 5,582 76,652 116,874 193,526
528 4.87 71,585 5,623 77,208 265,259 342,467
399 5.35 68,495 5,380 73,875 108,233 182,108
Riviera Maya 400 5.35 69,010 5,420 74,430 108,162 182,592
528 5.35 69,525 5,461 74,986 258,268 333,254
849 5.01 221,965 17,434 239,399 204,865 444,264
Cd. Juárez 850 5.01 222,480 17,475 239,955 204,875 444,830
1067 5.01 127,205 9,991 137,196 616,092 753,288
849 4.36 252,865 19,861 272,726 207,411 480,137
Monterrey 850 4.36 253,380 19,902 273,282 207,504 480,786
1067 4.36 144,715 11,367 156,082 626,692 782,773
1C
849 4.53 270,375 21,237 291,612 192,862 484,474
Tampico 850 4.53 270,890 21,277 292,167 192,915 485,083
1067 4.53 155,015 12,176 167,191 583,712 750,903
849 4.69 241,020 18,931 259,951 196,572 456,523
Mérida 850 4.69 241,535 18,971 260,506 196,611 457,117
1067 4.69 138,020 10,841 148,861 592,706 741,567
999 4.91 293,550 23,057 316,607 187,597 504,204
Mazatlán 1000 4.91 294,065 23,097 317,162 187,572 504,735
1320 4.91 215,785 16,949 232,734 676,437 909,171
999 5.74 232,780 18,284 251,064 219,912 470,976
La Paz 1000 5.74 232,780 18,284 251,064 220,508 471,572
1320 5.74 170,980 13,430 184,410 740,749 925,158
1D
999 5.21 216,815 17,030 233,845 287,501 521,346
Matamoros 1000 5.21 217,330 17,070 234,400 287,500 521,900
1320 5.21 159,650 12,540 172,190 748,206 920,396
999 5.58 248,745 19,538 268,283 205,944 474,226
Cd.
1000 5.58 248,745 19,538 268,283 206,541 474,823
Altamirano
1320 5.58 182,825 14,360 197,185 687,188 884,374
141
Annex
O&M Overall
PV user value value
value value
[kWh/month] [kWh/m2/d] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

1999 4.86 574,740 45,143 619,883 458,285 1,078,168
Culiacán 2000 4.86 575,255 45,184 620,439 458,297 1,078,736
2640 4.86 404,790 31,794 436,584 1,485,820 1,922,404
1999 6.05 499,550 39,237 538,787 374,204 912,992
Guaymas 2000 6.05 500,065 39,278 539,343 374,044 913,386
2640 6.05 352,260 27,668 379,928 1,420,009 1,799,937
1E
1999 4.54 534,055 41,947 576,002 573,376 1,149,379
Reynosa 2000 4.54 534,570 41,988 576,558 573,453 1,150,011
2640 4.54 376,465 29,570 406,035 1,508,152 1,914,186
1999 4.53 564,440 44,334 608,774 548,582 1,157,356
Piedras
2000 4.53 564,955 44,374 609,329 548,666 1,157,995
Negras
2640 4.53 397,580 31,228 428,808 1,526,958 1,955,766
2499 5.51 502,125 39,439 541,564 777,222 1,318,786
Mexicali 2750 5.51 695,765 54,649 750,414 611,710 1,362,124
870 5.51 93,215 7,322 100,537 165,144 265,681
2499 5.10 492,855 38,711 531,566 859,445 1,391,012
San Luis Rio
2750 5.10 682,890 53,638 736,528 725,680 1,462,208
Colorado
870 5.10 91,155 7,160 98,315 173,751 272,065
1F
2499 5.51 487,705 38,307 526,012 800,249 1,326,261
Cd. Obregón 2750 5.51 657,655 51,656 709,311 668,083 1,377,393
870 5.51 88,065 6,917 94,982 175,942 270,924
2499 6.03 468,135 36,770 504,905 773,655 1,278,560
Hermosillo 2750 6.03 648,900 50,968 699,868 606,422 1,306,290
870 6.03 86,520 6,796 93,316 164,341 257,657
Source: Own display
142
Annex
Annex 18: Scenario 1 – Key data for PV systems for partial electricity supply (residential sector)
PV Average
PV Average Average
portion of overall
Radiation generation tariff costs tariff costs
Tariff City electricity kWh costs
costs with PV without PV
demand with PV
[kWh/m2/d] [$/kWh] [%] [$/kWh] [$/kWh] [$/kWh]

5.73 3.69 45% 1.00 2.21 1.72
Durango 5.73 3.69 45% 1.03 2.22 2.93
5.73 3.69 25% 1.64 2.14 2.88
5.33 3.97 43% 1.00 2.28 1.72
Oaxaca 5.33 3.97 43% 1.00 2.29 2.98
5.33 3.97 16% 2.37 2.63 2.93
5.58 3.79 46% 0.98 2.28 1.72
1 Guadalajara 5.58 3.79 46% 0.98 2.28 2.93
5.58 3.79 18% 2.13 2.43 2.88
5.48 3.86 43% 1.01 2.23 1.72
Puebla 5.48 3.86 43% 1.01 2.24 2.98
5.48 3.86 16% 2.37 2.61 2.93
4.91 4.31 44% 0.98 2.44 1.72
Distrito
4.91 4.31 44% 0.98 2.45 3.19
Federal
4.91 4.31 17% 2.36 2.69 3.14
4.58 4.62 49% 1.05 2.81 1.74
Cuautla 4.58 4.62 49% 1.06 2.82 2.93
4.58 4.62 16% 2.32 2.70 2.89
4.81 4.40 50% 0.96 2.68 1.74
Tepic 4.81 4.40 50% 0.96 2.68 2.88
4.81 4.40 17% 2.21 2.58 2.84
1A
5.03 4.20 48% 1.09 2.59 1.74
Nogales 5.03 4.20 48% 1.09 2.60 2.88
5.03 4.20 16% 2.20 2.53 2.84
5.05 4.19 48% 1.08 2.58 1.74
Los Tuxtlas 5.05 4.19 49% 1.08 2.59 2.93
5.05 4.19 16% 2.32 2.62 2.89
143
Annex
PV Average
PV Average Average
portion of overall
demand with PV

5.92 3.60 40% 1.29 2.22 1.79
Chihuahua 5.92 3.60 40% 1.29 2.23 2.85
5.92 3.60 31% 2.09 2.55 2.81
5.28 4.04 43% 1.18 2.42 1.79
Acapulco 5.28 4.04 44% 1.18 2.42 2.87
5.28 4.04 33% 2.05 2.71 2.83
1B
4.87 4.38 36% 1.30 2.42 1.79
Poza Rica 4.87 4.38 36% 1.30 2.43 2.84
4.87 4.38 28% 1.97 2.64 2.80
5.35 3.98 39% 1.26 2.31 1.79
Riviera Maya 5.35 3.98 39% 1.26 2.32 2.87
5.35 3.98 30% 1.97 2.57 2.83
5.01 4.28 55% 1.52 3.03 1.95
Cd. Juárez 5.01 4.28 55% 1.52 3.04 2.69
5.01 4.28 25% 2.18 2.71 2.67
4.36 4.92 54% 1.52 3.37 1.95
Monterrey 4.36 4.92 54% 1.52 3.37 2.74
4.36 4.92 25% 2.21 2.88 2.72
1C
4.53 4.74 60% 1.63 3.51 1.95
Tampico 4.53 4.74 60% 1.63 3.51 2.74
4.53 4.74 28% 2.14 2.86 2.72
4.69 4.57 56% 1.49 3.21 1.95
Mérida 4.69 4.57 56% 1.49 3.21 2.79
4.69 4.57 25% 2.11 2.74 2.77
4.91 4.37 60% 1.34 3.17 1.89
Mazatlán 4.91 4.37 60% 1.34 3.17 2.80
4.91 4.37 34% 2.19 2.92 2.78
5.74 3.74 56% 1.42 2.72 1.89
La Paz 5.74 3.74 56% 1.42 2.72 2.84
5.74 3.74 31% 2.31 2.76 2.85
1D
5.21 4.13 47% 1.55 2.77 1.89
Matamoros 5.21 4.13 47% 1.55 2.77 2.72
5.21 4.13 26% 2.18 2.69 2.71
5.58 3.85 58% 1.40 2.82 1.90
Cd.
5.58 3.85 58% 1.40 2.82 2.77
Altamirano
5.58 3.85 32% 2.18 2.72 2.76
144
Annex
PV Average
PV Average Average
portion of overall
demand with PV

4.86 4.44 58% 1.56 3.23 2.05
Culiacán 4.86 4.44 58% 1.56 3.23 2.76
4.86 4.44 31% 2.31 2.97 2.76
6.05 3.56 63% 1.44 2.78 2.05
Guaymas 6.05 3.56 63% 1.44 2.78 2.76
6.05 3.56 34% 2.30 2.72 2.76
1E
4.54 4.75 51% 1.64 3.21 2.05
Reynosa 4.54 4.75 51% 1.64 3.22 2.69
4.54 4.75 27% 2.22 2.90 2.69
4.53 4.76 53% 1.67 3.32 2.05
Piedras
4.53 4.76 53% 1.67 3.32 2.69
Negras
4.53 4.76 28% 2.29 2.99 2.69
5.51 3.93 46% 1.63 2.69 1.80
Mexicali 5.51 3.93 58% 1.50 2.90 1.88
5.51 3.93 25% 0.71 1.50 1.01
5.10 4.25 42% 1.67 2.75 1.80
San Luis Rio
5.10 4.25 53% 1.58 2.98 2.01
Colorado
5.10 4.25 22% 0.73 1.51 1.01
1F
5.51 3.93 45% 1.64 2.66 1.80
Cd. Obregón 5.51 3.93 55% 1.52 2.84 2.01
5.51 3.93 23% 0.75 1.48 1.01
6.03 3.59 47% 1.65 2.56 1.80
Hermosillo 6.03 3.59 59% 1.53 2.75 2.01
6.03 3.59 25% 0.71 1.43 1.01
Source: Own display
145
Annex
Annex 19: Scenario 2 – Key data for PV systems with partial electricity supply (residential sector)
PV Average
PV Average Average
portion of overall
demand with PV

5.73 2.95 45% 1.47 2.14 2.53
Durango 5.73 2.95 45% 1.52 2.16 4.30
5.73 2.95 25% 2.41 2.54 4.23
5.33 3.18 43% 1.47 2.20 2.53
Oaxaca 5.33 3.18 43% 1.47 2.21 4.37
5.33 3.18 16% 3.48 3.43 4.31
5.58 3.03 46% 1.44 2.17 2.53
1 Guadalajara 5.58 3.03 46% 1.44 2.18 4.30
5.58 3.03 18% 3.13 3.11 4.23
5.48 3.09 43% 1.49 2.17 2.53
Puebla 5.48 3.09 43% 1.49 2.18 4.37
5.48 3.09 16% 3.48 3.41 4.31
4.91 3.44 44% 1.44 2.32 2.53
Distrito
4.91 3.44 44% 1.44 2.33 4.69
Federal
4.91 3.44 17% 3.46 3.46 4.62
4.58 3.70 49% 1.55 2.61 2.56
Cuautla 4.58 3.70 49% 1.55 2.61 4.31
4.58 3.70 16% 3.41 3.45 4.25
4.81 3.52 50% 1.41 2.46 2.56
Tepic 4.81 3.52 50% 1.41 2.47 4.23
4.81 3.52 17% 3.24 3.29 4.18
1A
5.03 3.36 48% 1.60 2.45 2.56
Nogales 5.03 3.36 48% 1.61 2.46 4.23
5.03 3.36 16% 3.24 3.26 4.18
5.05 3.35 48% 1.58 2.44 2.56
Los Tuxtlas 5.05 3.35 49% 1.58 2.44 4.31
5.05 3.35 16% 3.41 3.40 4.25
146
Annex
PV Average
PV Average Average
portion of overall
demand with PV

5.92 2.88 40% 1.90 2.30 2.63
Chihuahua 5.92 2.88 40% 1.90 2.30 4.19
5.92 2.88 31% 3.07 3.01 4.14
5.28 3.23 43% 1.73 2.38 2.63
Acapulco 5.28 3.23 44% 1.73 2.38 4.22
5.28 3.23 33% 3.02 3.09 4.16
1B
4.87 3.50 36% 1.92 2.49 2.63
Poza Rica 4.87 3.50 36% 1.92 2.49 4.17
4.87 3.50 28% 2.90 3.07 4.11
5.35 3.19 39% 1.85 2.36 2.63
Riviera Maya 5.35 3.19 39% 1.85 2.37 4.22
5.35 3.19 30% 2.90 2.98 4.16
5.01 3.42 55% 2.23 2.89 2.86
Cd. Juárez 5.01 3.42 55% 2.23 2.89 3.95
5.01 3.42 25% 3.21 3.26 3.93
4.36 3.94 54% 2.23 3.16 2.86
Monterrey 4.36 3.94 54% 2.23 3.16 4.02
4.36 3.94 25% 3.25 3.42 4.00
1C
4.53 3.79 60% 2.39 3.24 2.86
Tampico 4.53 3.79 60% 2.39 3.24 4.02
4.53 3.79 28% 3.15 3.32 4.00
4.69 3.66 56% 2.18 3.01 2.86
Mérida 4.69 3.66 56% 2.18 3.01 4.09
4.69 3.66 25% 3.10 3.24 4.07
4.91 3.50 60% 1.97 2.90 2.78
Mazatlán 4.91 3.50 60% 1.97 2.90 4.11
4.91 3.50 34% 3.22 3.31 4.09
5.74 2.99 56% 2.08 2.59 2.78
La Paz 5.74 2.99 56% 2.08 2.59 4.17
5.74 2.99 31% 3.39 3.27 4.19
1D
5.21 3.31 47% 2.27 2.76 2.78
Matamoros 5.21 3.31 47% 2.27 2.76 4.00
5.21 3.31 26% 3.20 3.23 3.98
5.58 3.08 58% 2.05 2.65 2.79
Cd.
5.58 3.08 58% 2.05 2.65 4.07
Altamirano
5.58 3.08 32% 3.21 3.17 4.05
147
Annex
PV Average
PV Average Average
portion of overall
demand with PV

4.86 3.55 58% 2.29 3.02 3.02
Culiacán 4.86 3.55 58% 2.29 3.02 4.06
4.86 3.55 31% 3.40 3.45 4.05
6.05 2.85 63% 2.11 2.58 3.02
Guaymas 6.05 2.85 63% 2.11 2.58 4.06
6.05 2.85 34% 3.38 3.20 4.05
1E
4.54 3.80 51% 2.42 3.12 3.02
Reynosa 4.54 3.80 51% 2.42 3.12 3.95
4.54 3.80 27% 3.26 3.41 3.95
4.53 3.81 53% 2.45 3.17 3.02
Piedras
4.53 3.81 53% 2.45 3.17 3.95
Negras
4.53 3.81 28% 3.37 3.49 3.95
5.51 3.14 46% 2.40 2.74 2.65
Mexicali 5.51 3.14 58% 2.20 2.75 2.77
5.51 3.14 25% 1.05 1.56 1.49
5.10 3.40 42% 2.46 2.85 2.65
San Luis Rio
5.10 3.40 53% 2.32 2.89 2.96
Colorado
5.10 3.40 22% 1.07 1.59 1.49
1F
5.51 3.14 45% 2.41 2.74 2.65
Cd. Obregón 5.51 3.14 55% 2.24 2.73 2.96
5.51 3.14 23% 1.10 1.57 1.49
6.03 2.87 47% 2.43 2.64 2.65
Hermosillo 6.03 2.87 59% 2.24 2.62 2.96
6.03 2.87 25% 1.05 1.50 1.49
Source: Own display
148
Annex
Annex 20: Scenario 3 – Key data for PV systems with partial electricity supply (residential sector)
PV Average
PV Average Average
portion of overall
demand with PV

5.73 1.85 45% 1.47 1.64 2.53
Durango 5.73 1.85 45% 1.52 1.66 4.30
5.73 1.85 25% 2.41 2.27 4.23
5.33 1.98 43% 1.47 1.69 2.53
Oaxaca 5.33 1.98 43% 1.47 1.69 4.37
5.33 1.98 16% 3.48 3.24 4.31
5.58 1.90 46% 1.44 1.65 2.53
1 Guadalajara 5.58 1.90 46% 1.44 1.65 4.30
5.58 1.90 18% 3.13 2.91 4.23
5.48 1.93 43% 1.49 1.68 2.53
Puebla 5.48 1.93 43% 1.49 1.68 4.37
5.48 1.93 16% 3.48 3.22 4.31
4.91 2.15 44% 1.44 1.75 2.53
Distrito
4.91 2.15 44% 1.44 1.76 4.69
Federal
4.91 2.15 17% 3.46 3.24 4.62
4.58 2.31 49% 1.55 1.92 2.56
Cuautla 4.58 2.31 49% 1.55 1.93 4.31
4.58 2.31 16% 3.41 3.23 4.25
4.81 2.20 50% 1.41 1.80 2.56
Tepic 4.81 2.20 50% 1.41 1.81 4.23
4.81 2.20 17% 3.24 3.06 4.18
1A
5.03 2.10 48% 1.60 1.84 2.56
Nogales 5.03 2.10 48% 1.61 1.85 4.23
5.03 2.10 16% 3.24 3.05 4.18
5.05 2.09 48% 1.58 1.83 2.56
Los Tuxtlas 5.05 2.09 49% 1.58 1.83 4.31
5.05 2.09 16% 3.41 3.19 4.25
149
Annex
PV Average
PV Average Average
portion of overall
demand with PV

5.92 1.80 40% 1.90 1.86 2.63
Chihuahua 5.92 1.80 40% 1.90 1.86 4.19
5.92 1.80 31% 3.07 2.68 4.14
5.28 2.02 43% 1.73 1.85 2.63
Acapulco 5.28 2.02 44% 1.73 1.86 4.22
5.28 2.02 33% 3.02 2.68 4.16
1B
4.87 2.19 36% 1.92 2.02 2.63
Poza Rica 4.87 2.19 36% 1.92 2.02 4.17
4.87 2.19 28% 2.90 2.70 4.11
5.35 1.99 39% 1.85 1.90 2.63
Riviera Maya 5.35 1.99 39% 1.85 1.90 4.22
5.35 1.99 30% 2.90 2.63 4.16
5.01 2.14 55% 2.23 2.18 2.86
Cd. Juárez 5.01 2.14 55% 2.23 2.18 3.95
5.01 2.14 25% 3.21 2.94 3.93
4.36 2.46 54% 2.23 2.36 2.86
Monterrey 4.36 2.46 54% 2.23 2.36 4.02
4.36 2.46 25% 3.25 3.06 4.00
1C
4.53 2.37 60% 2.39 2.38 2.86
Tampico 4.53 2.37 60% 2.39 2.38 4.02
4.53 2.37 28% 3.15 2.93 4.00
4.69 2.29 56% 2.18 2.24 2.86
Mérida 4.69 2.29 56% 2.18 2.24 4.09
4.69 2.29 25% 3.10 2.90 4.07
4.91 2.19 60% 1.97 2.10 2.78
Mazatlán 4.91 2.19 60% 1.97 2.10 4.11
4.91 2.19 34% 3.22 2.87 4.09
5.74 1.87 56% 2.08 1.96 2.78
La Paz 5.74 1.87 56% 2.08 1.96 4.17
5.74 1.87 31% 3.39 2.92 4.19
1D
5.21 2.07 47% 2.27 2.17 2.78
Matamoros 5.21 2.07 47% 2.27 2.17 4.00
5.21 2.07 26% 3.20 2.91 3.98
5.58 1.92 58% 2.05 1.98 2.79
Cd.
5.58 1.92 58% 2.05 1.98 4.07
Altamirano
5.58 1.92 32% 3.21 2.79 4.05
150
Annex
PV Average
PV Average Average
portion of overall
demand with PV

4.86 2.22 58% 2.29 2.25 3.02
Culiacán 4.86 2.22 58% 2.29 2.25 4.06
4.86 2.22 31% 3.40 3.03 4.05
6.05 1.78 63% 2.11 1.90 3.02
Guaymas 6.05 1.78 63% 2.11 1.90 4.06
6.05 1.78 34% 3.38 2.84 4.05
1E
4.54 2.38 51% 2.42 2.40 3.02
Reynosa 4.54 2.38 51% 2.42 2.40 3.95
4.54 2.38 27% 3.26 3.02 3.95
4.53 2.38 53% 2.45 2.41 3.02
Piedras
4.53 2.38 53% 2.45 2.41 3.95
Negras
4.53 2.38 28% 3.37 3.09 3.95
5.51 1.96 46% 2.40 2.20 2.65
Mexicali 5.51 1.96 58% 2.20 2.06 2.77
5.51 1.96 25% 1.05 1.27 1.49
5.10 2.12 42% 2.46 2.32 2.65
San Luis Rio
5.10 2.12 53% 2.32 2.22 2.96
Colorado
5.10 2.12 22% 1.07 1.30 1.49
1F
5.51 1.96 45% 2.41 2.21 2.65
Cd. Obregón 5.51 1.96 55% 2.24 2.09 2.96
5.51 1.96 23% 1.10 1.30 1.49
6.03 1.80 47% 2.43 2.13 2.65
Hermosillo 6.03 1.80 59% 2.24 1.98 2.96
6.03 1.80 25% 1.05 1.23 1.49
Source: Own display
151
Annex
Annex 21: Scenario 1 - Cost comparison (industry and services sectors)
Average charged Average

Overall
capacity demand consumption Electricity costs Cost
electricity costs Cost difference
Tariff per month of PV per month of without PV saving
with PV
user PV user
270 160,217 160,248 -32 NO
2 135 80,737 80,753 -16 NO
540 319,175 319,238 -64 NO
63 4,600 4,733,216 4,775,732 -42,516 NO
26 2,300 2,289,406 2,311,915 -22,509 NO
3 100 9,200 8,128,271 8,215,805 -87,534 NO
100 2,300 5,892,148 5,914,657 -22,509 NO
26 9,200 4,525,529 4,613,063 -87,534 NO
50 5,300 2,441,066 2,530,577 -89,510 NO
10 2,650 823,900 868,655 -44,755 NO
Baja
California
99 10,600 4,855,690 5,034,711 -179,021 NO
99 2,650 3,177,257 3,222,013 -44,755 NO
10 10,600 2,502,333 2,681,354 -179,021 NO
50 5,300 2,833,046 2,914,003 -80,957 NO
10 2,650 941,688 982,166 -40,478 NO
O-M Central 99 10,600 5,634,437 5,796,350 -161,913 NO
99 2,650 3,759,044 3,799,522 -40,478 NO
10 10,600 2,817,081 2,978,994 -161,913 NO
50 5,300 2,622,340 2,708,419 -86,079 NO
10 2,650 874,604 917,643 -43,039 NO
Northeast 99 10,600 5,215,575 5,387,733 -172,158 NO
99 2,650 3,464,896 3,507,935 -43,039 NO
10 10,600 2,625,283 2,797,441 -172,158 NO
200 77,000 28,193,992 29,679,157 -1,485,165 NO
110 38,500 15,043,069 15,783,082 -740,013 NO
Baja
California
300 144,000 49,224,726 51,812,885 -2,588,159 NO
300 38,500 23,557,731 24,297,743 -740,013 NO
110 144,000 40,710,065 43,298,224 -2,588,159 NO
200 77,000 26,308,806 27,745,414 -1,436,608 NO
110 38,500 13,810,179 14,525,997 -715,819 NO
H-M Central 300 144,000 46,773,661 49,271,092 -2,497,431 NO
300 38,500 19,712,161 20,427,979 -715,819 NO
110 144,000 40,871,679 43,369,109 -2,497,431 NO
200 77,000 24,298,029 25,792,991 -1,494,963 NO
110 38,500 12,752,002 13,496,897 -744,895 NO
Northeast 300 144,000 43,208,632 45,815,099 -2,606,467 NO
300 38,500 18,178,889 18,923,784 -744,895 NO
110 144,000 37,781,745 40,388,212 -2,606,467 NO
200 60,000 20,601,356 21,566,253 -964,897 NO
110 30,000 10,670,289 11,154,881 -484,593 NO
H-MC Northeast 300 120,000 39,354,658 41,284,451 -1,929,794 NO
300 30,000 13,996,786 14,481,379 -484,593 NO
110 120,000 36,028,160 37,957,954 -1,929,794 NO
152
Annex

Overall
with PV
user PV user
300 1,710,000 533,525,705 556,303,146 -22,777,441 NO
150 855,000 267,150,801 278,539,521 -11,388,720 NO
Baja
California
600 3,420,000 1,067,051,410 1,112,602,743 -45,551,333 NO
600 855,000 284,220,530 295,609,251 -11,388,720 NO
150 3,420,000 1,049,981,681 1,095,533,014 -45,551,333 NO
300 1,710,000 466,145,358 493,766,475 -27,621,117 NO
150 855,000 233,291,838 247,102,397 -13,810,558 NO
H-S Central 600 3,420,000 932,290,716 987,528,646 -55,237,930 NO
600 855,000 242,934,839 256,745,398 -13,810,558 NO
150 3,420,000 922,647,714 977,885,645 -55,237,930 NO
300 1,710,000 443,735,672 472,293,609 -28,557,937 NO
150 855,000 222,083,141 236,362,109 -14,278,969 NO
Northeast 600 3,420,000 887,471,344 944,582,769 -57,111,425 NO
600 855,000 231,556,552 245,835,520 -14,278,969 NO
150 3,420,000 877,997,933 935,109,358 -57,111,425 NO
300 3,980,000 1,047,624,244 1,104,647,663 -57,023,420 NO
150 1,990,000 523,812,122 552,325,741 -28,513,619 NO
Baja
California
600 7,960,000 2,095,248,488 2,209,295,327 -114,046,839 NO
600 1,990,000 549,987,205 578,500,824 -28,513,619 NO
150 7,960,000 2,069,073,404 2,183,120,244 -114,046,839 NO
300 3,980,000 933,933,105 999,104,192 -65,171,087 NO
150 1,990,000 466,966,552 499,554,278 -32,587,725 NO
H-SL Central 600 7,960,000 1,867,866,210 1,998,208,385 -130,342,175 NO
600 1,990,000 481,753,958 514,341,683 -32,587,725 NO
150 7,960,000 1,853,078,805 1,983,420,979 -130,342,175 NO
300 3,980,000 883,804,955 951,186,346 -67,381,391 NO
150 1,990,000 441,902,478 475,595,429 -33,692,951 NO
Northeast 600 7,960,000 1,767,609,910 1,902,372,693 -134,762,783 NO
600 1,990,000 456,438,635 490,131,586 -33,692,951 NO
150 7,960,000 1,753,073,753 1,887,836,536 -134,762,783 NO
153
Annex

Overall
with PV
user PV user
500 8,100,000 2,409,973,050 2,522,921,306 -112,948,256 NO
250 4,050,000 1,204,986,525 1,261,460,653 -56,474,128 NO
Baja
California
1,000 16,200,000 4,819,946,099 5,045,838,896 -225,892,797 NO
1,000 4,050,000 1,232,188,804 1,288,662,932 -56,474,128 NO
250 16,200,000 4,792,743,820 5,018,636,617 -225,892,797 NO
500 8,100,000 2,076,192,071 2,214,570,693 -138,378,622 NO
250 4,050,000 1,038,096,035 1,107,285,346 -69,189,311 NO
H-T Central 1,000 16,200,000 4,152,384,142 4,429,136,833 -276,752,692 NO
1,000 4,050,000 1,052,415,671 1,121,604,982 -69,189,311 NO
250 16,200,000 4,138,064,506 4,414,817,198 -276,752,692 NO
500 8,100,000 1,904,044,470 2,050,096,000 -146,051,530 NO
250 4,050,000 952,022,235 1,025,048,000 -73,025,765 NO
Peninsula 1,000 16,200,000 3,808,088,940 4,100,187,195 -292,098,255 NO
1,000 4,050,000 966,341,871 1,039,367,635 -73,025,765 NO
250 16,200,000 3,793,769,304 4,085,867,559 -292,098,255 NO
500 39,000,000 9,843,379,315 10,429,803,628 -586,424,313 NO
250 19,500,000 4,921,689,658 5,214,899,811 -293,210,153 NO
Baja
California
1,000 78,000,000 19,686,758,631 20,859,607,257 -1,172,848,626 NO
1,000 19,500,000 4,962,502,643 5,255,712,797 -293,210,153 NO
250 78,000,000 19,645,945,645 20,818,794,271 -1,172,848,626 NO
500 39,000,000 8,681,379,698 9,351,560,368 -670,180,670 NO
250 19,500,000 4,340,689,849 4,675,777,895 -335,088,046 NO
H-TL Central 1,000 78,000,000 17,362,759,397 18,703,120,736 -1,340,361,340 NO
1,000 19,500,000 4,362,172,624 4,697,260,669 -335,088,046 NO
250 78,000,000 17,341,276,622 18,681,637,962 -1,340,361,340 NO
500 39,000,000 7,851,525,880 8,558,678,221 -707,152,341 NO
250 19,500,000 3,925,762,940 4,279,336,695 -353,573,755 NO
Peninsula 1,000 78,000,000 15,703,051,760 17,117,356,442 -1,414,304,682 NO
1,000 19,500,000 3,947,245,714 4,300,819,469 -353,573,755 NO
250 78,000,000 15,681,568,985 17,095,873,668 -1,414,304,682 NO
Source: Own display
154
Annex

Radiation 6 kWh/m2 d 5 kWh/m2 d 4,5 kWh/m2 d
Average
charged Average
capacity consumption Cost Cost Cost
Tariff Cost difference Cost difference Cost difference
demand per per month of saving saving saving
month of PV PV user
user
270 4,636 YES 2,827 YES 1,923 YES
2 135 2,318 YES 1,696 YES 1,346 YES
540 9,272 YES 5,655 YES 5,770 YES
63 4,600 19,937 YES -1,226 NO -15,502 NO
26 2,300 10,555 YES -584 NO -8,088 NO
3 100 9,200 41,047 YES -2,394 NO -31,003 NO
100 2,300 10,555 YES -584 NO -8,088 NO
26 9,200 41,047 YES -2,394 NO -31,003 NO
50 5,300 -31,933 NO -56,790 NO -74,278 NO
10 2,650 -15,966 NO -28,395 NO -35,764 NO
Baja
99 10,600 -63,866 NO -113,580 NO -145,805 NO
Calfornia
99 2,650 -15,966 NO -28,395 NO -35,764 NO
10 10,600 -63,866 NO -113,580 NO -145,805 NO
50 5,300 -19,935 NO -44,792 NO -62,131 NO
10 2,650 -9,968 NO -22,396 NO -29,915 NO
O-M Central 99 10,600 -39,871 NO -89,585 NO -121,961 NO
99 2,650 -9,968 NO -22,396 NO -29,915 NO
10 10,600 -39,871 NO -89,585 NO -121,961 NO
50 5,300 -27,120 NO -51,977 NO -69,405 NO
10 2,650 -13,560 NO -25,988 NO -33,417 NO
Northeast 99 10,600 -54,240 NO -103,954 NO -136,240 NO
99 2,650 -13,560 NO -25,988 NO -33,417 NO
10 10,600 -54,240 NO -103,954 NO -136,240 NO
200 77,000 -730,353 NO -1,090,165 NO -1,327,843 NO
110 38,500 -363,913 NO -543,512 NO -665,646 NO
Baja
300 144,000 -1,215,161 NO -1,859,263 NO -2,287,062 NO
Calfornia
300 38,500 -363,913 NO -543,512 NO -665,646 NO
110 144,000 -1,215,161 NO -1,859,263 NO -2,287,062 NO
200 77,000 -662,250 NO -1,022,022 NO -1,259,799 NO
110 38,500 -329,979 NO -509,539 NO -631,535 NO
H-M Central 300 144,000 -1,087,910 NO -1,731,816 NO -2,159,634 NO
300 38,500 -329,979 NO -509,539 NO -631,535 NO
110 144,000 -1,087,910 NO -1,731,816 NO -2,159,634 NO
200 77,000 -744,095 NO -1,103,915 NO -1,341,573 NO
110 38,500 -370,760 NO -550,367 NO -672,529 NO
Northeast 300 144,000 -1,240,839 NO -1,884,981 NO -2,312,775 NO
300 38,500 -370,760 NO -550,367 NO -672,529 NO
110 144,000 -1,240,839 NO -1,884,981 NO -2,312,775 NO
200 60,000 -300,203 NO -579,844 NO -766,272 NO
110 30,000 -150,768 NO -289,922 NO -383,136 NO
H-MC Northeast 300 120,000 -600,405 NO -1,010,177 NO -1,366,420 NO
300 30,000 -150,768 NO -289,922 NO -383,136 NO
110 120,000 -600,405 NO -1,010,177 NO -1,366,420 NO
155
Annex

Average
charged Average
month of PV PV user
user
300 1,710,000 -5,119,165 NO -12,241,881 NO -16,991,287 NO
150 855,000 -2,559,582 NO -6,121,736 NO -8,494,651 NO
Baja
600 3,420,000 -10,237,532 NO -24,485,352 NO -33,982,574 NO
Calfornia
600 855,000 -2,559,582 NO -6,121,736 NO -8,494,651 NO
150 3,420,000 -10,237,532 NO -24,485,352 NO -33,982,574 NO
300 1,710,000 -11,912,671 NO -19,034,858 NO -23,784,528 NO
150 855,000 -5,956,336 NO -9,518,665 NO -11,890,874 NO
H-S Central 600 3,420,000 -23,823,486 NO -38,072,189 NO -47,569,057 NO
600 855,000 -5,956,336 NO -9,518,665 NO -11,890,874 NO
150 3,420,000 -23,823,486 NO -38,072,189 NO -47,569,057 NO
300 1,710,000 -13,226,610 NO -20,348,695 NO -25,098,416 NO
150 855,000 -6,613,305 NO -10,175,669 NO -12,547,742 NO
Northeast 600 3,420,000 -26,451,159 NO -40,700,032 NO -50,196,833 NO
600 855,000 -6,613,305 NO -10,175,669 NO -12,547,742 NO
150 3,420,000 -26,451,159 NO -40,700,032 NO -50,196,833 NO
300 3,980,000 -17,541,323 NO -34,121,815 NO -45,173,572 NO
150 1,990,000 -8,771,249 NO -17,059,956 NO -22,586,786 NO
Baja
600 7,960,000 -35,082,646 NO -68,241,726 NO -90,347,144 NO
Calfornia
600 1,990,000 -8,771,249 NO -17,059,956 NO -22,586,786 NO
150 7,960,000 -35,082,646 NO -68,241,726 NO -90,347,144 NO
300 3,980,000 -28,968,849 NO -45,549,723 NO -56,601,098 NO
150 1,990,000 -14,485,394 NO -22,773,591 NO -28,300,549 NO
H-SL Central 600 7,960,000 -57,937,698 NO -91,096,904 NO -113,202,195 NO
600 1,990,000 -14,485,394 NO -22,773,591 NO -28,300,549 NO
150 7,960,000 -57,937,698 NO -91,096,904 NO -113,202,195 NO
300 3,980,000 -32,068,914 NO -48,649,892 NO -59,701,163 NO
150 1,990,000 -16,035,531 NO -24,323,589 NO -29,850,582 NO
Northeast 600 7,960,000 -64,137,829 NO -97,297,070 NO -119,402,326 NO
600 1,990,000 -16,035,531 NO -24,323,589 NO -29,850,582 NO
150 7,960,000 -64,137,829 NO -97,297,070 NO -119,402,326 NO
156
Annex

Average
charged Average
month of PV PV user
user
500 8,100,000 -31,343,136 NO -65,085,669 NO -87,579,971 NO
250 4,050,000 -15,671,568 NO -32,542,835 NO -43,788,905 NO
Baja
1,000 16,200,000 -62,685,241 NO -130,169,554 NO -175,159,942 NO
Calfornia
1,000 4,050,000 -15,671,568 NO -32,542,835 NO -43,788,905 NO
250 16,200,000 -62,685,241 NO -130,169,554 NO -175,159,942 NO
500 8,100,000 -67,010,539 NO -100,753,072 NO -123,247,081 NO
250 4,050,000 -33,505,270 NO -50,376,536 NO -61,622,020 NO
1,000 4,050,000 -33,505,270 NO -50,376,536 NO -61,622,020 NO
250 16,200,000 -134,018,874 NO -201,503,383 NO -246,494,162 NO
500 8,100,000 -77,772,189 NO -111,514,723 NO -134,008,643 NO
250 4,050,000 -38,886,095 NO -55,757,361 NO -67,002,668 NO
1,000 4,050,000 -38,886,095 NO -55,757,361 NO -67,002,668 NO
250 16,200,000 -155,541,821 NO -223,026,388 NO -268,017,286 NO
500 39,000,000 -210,664,951 NO -373,127,904 NO -481,436,654 NO
250 19,500,000 -105,331,756 NO -186,562,890 NO -240,717,093 NO
Baja
1,000 78,000,000 -421,329,903 NO -746,253,684 NO -962,870,840 NO
Calfornia
1,000 19,500,000 -105,331,756 NO -186,562,890 NO -240,717,093 NO
250 78,000,000 -421,329,903 NO -746,253,684 NO -962,870,840 NO
500 39,000,000 -328,137,575 NO -490,600,661 NO -598,909,477 NO
250 19,500,000 -164,067,666 NO -245,298,934 NO -299,453,204 NO
H-TL Central 1,000 78,000,000 -656,275,149 NO -981,198,529 NO -1,197,815,886 NO
1,000 19,500,000 -164,067,666 NO -245,298,934 NO -299,453,204 NO
250 78,000,000 -656,275,149 NO -981,198,529 NO -1,197,815,886 NO
500 39,000,000 -379,992,256 NO -542,455,402 NO -650,764,248 NO
250 19,500,000 -189,994,830 NO -271,226,157 NO -325,380,457 NO
Peninsula 1,000 78,000,000 -759,984,513 NO -1,084,907,715 NO -1,301,525,161 NO
1,000 19,500,000 -189,994,830 NO -271,226,157 NO -325,380,457 NO
250 78,000,000 -759,984,513 NO -1,084,907,715 NO -1,301,525,161 NO
Source: Own display
157
Annex

Average
charged Average
Tariff
month of PV user
user
270 7,263 YES 5,406 YES 4,477 YES
2 135 3,632 YES 3,243 YES 3,134 YES
540 14,527 YES 10,811 YES 13,430 YES
63 4,600 62,994 YES 48,812 YES 39,779 YES
26 2,300 29,644 YES 24,406 YES 19,890 YES
3 100 9,200 125,987 YES 97,624 YES 81,367 YES
100 2,300 29,644 YES 24,406 YES 19,890 YES
26 9,200 125,987 YES 97,624 YES 81,367 YES
50 5,300 16,344 YES 1,599 YES -8,471 NO
10 2,650 8,602 YES 834 YES -4,236 NO
Baja
99 10,600 33,548 YES 3,198 YES -16,943 NO
California
99 2,650 8,602 YES 834 YES -4,236 NO
10 10,600 33,548 YES 3,198 YES -16,943 NO
50 5,300 28,054 YES 13,412 YES 3,547 YES
10 2,650 14,765 YES 6,997 YES 1,773 YES
O-M Central 99 10,600 57,584 YES 26,823 YES 7,093 YES
99 2,650 14,765 YES 6,997 YES 1,773 YES
10 10,600 57,584 YES 26,823 YES 7,093 YES
50 5,300 21,042 YES 6,338 YES -3,650 NO
10 2,650 11,075 YES 3,307 YES -1,825 NO
Northeast 99 10,600 43,191 YES 12,676 YES -7,300 NO
99 2,650 11,075 YES 3,307 YES -1,825 NO
10 10,600 43,191 YES 12,676 YES -7,300 NO
200 77,000 -26,923 NO -245,780 NO -391,063 NO
110 38,500 -13,509 NO -122,890 NO -196,053 NO
Baja
300 144,000 40,625 YES -349,647 NO -609,723 NO
Calfornia
300 38,500 -13,509 NO -122,890 NO -196,053 NO
110 144,000 40,625 YES -349,647 NO -609,723 NO
200 77,000 41,109 YES -177,587 NO -322,971 NO
110 38,500 20,628 YES -88,793 NO -161,916 NO
H-M Central 300 144,000 167,974 YES -222,339 NO -482,435 NO
300 38,500 20,628 YES -88,793 NO -161,916 NO
110 144,000 167,974 YES -222,339 NO -482,435 NO
200 77,000 -40,651 NO -259,541 NO -404,803 NO
110 38,500 -20,398 NO -129,770 NO -202,941 NO
Northeast 300 144,000 14,928 YES -375,336 NO -635,408 NO
300 38,500 -20,398 NO -129,770 NO -202,941 NO
110 144,000 14,928 YES -375,336 NO -635,408 NO
200 60,000 247,428 YES 77,372 YES -36,097 NO
110 30,000 124,279 YES 38,833 YES -18,048 NO
H-MC Northeast 300 120,000 494,857 YES 245,766 YES 28,865 YES
300 30,000 124,279 YES 38,833 YES -18,048 NO
110 120,000 494,857 YES 245,766 YES 28,865 YES
158
Annex

Average
charged Average
Tariff
month of PV user
user
300 1,710,000 8,831,564 YES 4,497,656 YES 1,608,719 YES
150 855,000 4,415,075 YES 2,248,828 YES 804,263 YES
Baja
600 3,420,000 17,661,713 YES 8,995,311 YES 3,217,439 YES
Calfornia
600 855,000 4,415,075 YES 2,248,828 YES 804,263 YES
150 3,420,000 17,661,713 YES 8,995,311 YES 3,217,439 YES
300 1,710,000 2,037,898 YES -2,295,648 NO -5,184,674 NO
150 855,000 1,018,786 YES -1,147,824 NO -2,592,026 NO
H-S Central 600 3,420,000 4,075,469 YES -4,591,295 NO -10,369,349 NO
600 855,000 1,018,786 YES -1,147,824 NO -2,592,026 NO
150 3,420,000 4,075,469 YES -4,591,295 NO -10,369,349 NO
300 1,710,000 723,928 YES -3,609,547 NO -6,498,592 NO
150 855,000 361,906 YES -1,804,774 NO -3,248,906 NO
Northeast 600 3,420,000 1,447,740 YES -7,219,095 NO -12,997,183 NO
600 855,000 361,906 YES -1,804,774 NO -3,248,906 NO
150 3,420,000 1,447,740 YES -7,219,095 NO -12,997,183 NO
300 3,980,000 14,926,898 YES 4,840,960 YES -1,883,058 NO
150 1,990,000 7,462,936 YES 2,420,341 YES -941,578 NO
Baja
600 7,960,000 29,853,795 YES 9,681,643 YES -3,766,116 NO
Calfornia
600 1,990,000 7,462,936 YES 2,420,341 YES -941,578 NO
150 7,960,000 29,853,795 YES 9,681,643 YES -3,766,116 NO
300 3,980,000 3,499,121 YES -6,586,948 NO -13,310,639 NO
150 1,990,000 1,749,440 YES -3,293,285 NO -6,655,663 NO
H-SL Central 600 7,960,000 6,998,241 YES -13,173,518 NO -26,621,277 NO
600 1,990,000 1,749,440 YES -3,293,285 NO -6,655,663 NO
150 7,960,000 6,998,241 YES -13,173,518 NO -26,621,277 NO
300 3,980,000 398,987 YES -9,687,117 NO -16,410,719 NO
150 1,990,000 199,480 YES -4,843,281 NO -8,205,783 NO
Northeast 600 7,960,000 797,974 YES -19,373,679 NO -32,821,438 NO
600 1,990,000 199,480 YES -4,843,281 NO -8,205,783 NO
150 7,960,000 797,974 YES -19,373,679 NO -32,821,438 NO
159
Annex

Average
charged Average
Tariff
month of PV user
user
500 8,100,000 34,735,601 YES 14,209,204 YES 524,806 YES
250 4,050,000 17,368,387 YES 7,104,402 YES 262,403 YES
Baja
1,000 16,200,000 69,471,201 YES 28,418,408 YES 1,049,613 YES
Calfornia
1,000 4,050,000 17,368,387 YES 7,104,402 YES 262,403 YES
250 16,200,000 69,471,201 YES 28,418,408 YES 1,049,613 YES
500 8,100,000 -931,401 NO -21,457,998 NO -35,142,195 NO
250 4,050,000 -465,716 NO -10,728,697 NO -17,571,098 NO
1,000 4,050,000 -465,716 NO -10,728,697 NO -17,571,098 NO
250 16,200,000 -1,862,802 NO -42,915,997 NO -70,284,390 NO
500 8,100,000 -11,692,930 NO -32,219,588 NO -45,903,724 NO
250 4,050,000 -5,846,663 NO -16,109,340 NO -22,951,862 NO
1,000 4,050,000 -5,846,663 NO -16,109,340 NO -22,951,862 NO
250 16,200,000 -23,385,860 NO -64,439,176 NO -91,807,448 NO
500 39,000,000 107,490,963 YES 8,659,462 YES -57,227,988 NO
250 19,500,000 53,745,482 YES 4,329,706 YES -28,613,994 NO
Baja
1,000 78,000,000 214,981,927 YES 17,318,924 YES -114,456,278 NO
Calfornia
1,000 19,500,000 53,745,482 YES 4,329,706 YES -28,613,994 NO
250 78,000,000 214,981,927 YES 17,318,924 YES -114,456,278 NO
500 39,000,000 -9,981,803 NO -108,813,167 NO -174,700,342 NO
250 19,500,000 -4,990,901 NO -54,406,265 NO -87,350,171 NO
H-TL Central 1,000 78,000,000 -19,963,606 NO -217,626,334 NO -349,401,604 NO
1,000 19,500,000 -4,990,901 NO -54,406,265 NO -87,350,171 NO
250 78,000,000 -19,963,606 NO -217,626,334 NO -349,401,604 NO
500 39,000,000 -61,836,548 NO -160,667,851 NO -226,554,905 NO
250 19,500,000 -30,918,274 NO -80,333,456 NO -113,277,452 NO
1,000 19,500,000 -30,918,274 NO -80,333,456 NO -113,277,452 NO
250 78,000,000 -123,673,095 NO -321,335,702 NO -453,111,002 NO
Source: Own display
160
Annex
Annex 24: Potential PV system capacities for macro-approach “No tariff change”
Macro-approach "No tariff change"

Scenario 1
Average photovoltaic system capacities to be installed by users in niche
Consumption range [kW p]
Tariff 1 Tariff 1A Tariff 1B Tariff 1C Tariff 1D Tariff 1E Tariff 1F
DAC no niches
Scenario 2
Consumption range Tariff 1 Tariff 1A Tariff 1B Tariff 1C Tariff 1D Tariff 1E Tariff 1F
DAC 1.40 1.75 2.25 5.40 5.30 11.55 16.20
Scenario 3
Lower no niche no niche no niche no niche no niche 2.25 3.10
Higher 0.70 1.00 1.10 2.60 2.40 5.40 6.25
DAC 1.35 1.75 2.25 5.40 5.30 11.55 12.30
Source: Own display
Annex 25: Potential PV system capacities for macro-approach “No subsidies”
Macro-approach "No subsidies"

Scenario 1
Average photovoltaic system capacities to be installed by users in niche
Consumption range [kW p]
Tariff 1 Tariff 1A Tariff 1B Tariff 1C Tariff 1D Tariff 1E Tariff 1F
DAC no niches
Scenario 2
Lower 0.20 0.30 0.20 0.60 0.50 1.10 1.30
Higher 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.90 2.00 4.40 6.30
DAC 1.40 1.75 2.25 5.40 5.30 11.55 16.20
Scenario 3
Lower 0.30 0.40 0.30 0.90 0.80 1.70 2.00
Higher 1.00 1.20 1.60 3.00 3.20 7.00 10.00
DAC 2.20 2.80 3.60 8.60 8.50 18.50 19.70
Source: Own display
161
Annex
Annex 26: Scenario 1 - Cost comparison for different solar radiation data (residential sector)
Radiation -15% Radiation ±0 Radiation +15%
Cost Cost Cost
Consumption difference PV Cost difference PV Cost difference PV Cost
Tariff City
(partial) - saving (partial) - saving (partial) - saving
tariff tariff tariff
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$]
140 0 No 0 No 0 No
249 -46,880 No -29,095 No -16,815 No
Durango
250 24,845 Yes 42,502 Yes 55,895 Yes
300 41,740 Yes 53,116 Yes 61,737 Yes
140 0 No 0 No 0 No
249 -51,252 No -33,386 No -20,055 No
Oaxaca
250 23,369 Yes 41,303 Yes 55,535 Yes
300 19,272 Yes 21,700 Yes 33,750 Yes
140 0 No 0 No 0 No
249 -51,960 No -33,223 No -19,765 No
1 Guadalajara
250 19,758 Yes 38,558 Yes 52,080 Yes
300 17,973 Yes 32,677 Yes 32,680 Yes
140 0 No 0 No 0 No
249 -48,273 No -30,615 No -18,070 No
Puebla
250 26,355 Yes 44,083 Yes 56,699 Yes
300 15,129 Yes 23,056 Yes 28,912 Yes
140 0 No 0 No 0 No
Distrito 249 -63,282 No -43,285 No -28,711 No
Federal 250 24,084 Yes 44,137 Yes 58,769 Yes
300 23,903 Yes 32,964 Yes 39,733 Yes
150 0 No 0 No 0 No
299 -105,335 No -76,469 No -55,290 No
Cuautla
300 -20,737 No 8,182 Yes 29,416 Yes
360 5,078 Yes 16,984 Yes 33,529 Yes
150 0 No 0 No 0 No
299 -94,779 No -66,989 No -46,778 No
Tepic
300 -13,642 No 14,202 Yes 34,467 Yes
360 11,902 Yes 23,142 Yes 31,702 Yes
1A
150 0 No 0 No 0 No
299 -86,483 No -60,899 No -41,980 No
Nogales
300 -5,344 No 20,290 Yes 39,260 Yes
360 17,174 Yes 27,376 Yes 35,085 Yes
150 0 No 0 No 0 No
299 -85,735 No -60,145 No -41,220 No
Los Tuxtlas
300 -1,110 No 24,540 Yes 44,180 Yes
360 13,088 Yes 23,294 Yes 31,001 Yes
162
Annex

Cost Cost Cost
Tariff City
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$]
200 0 No 0 No 0 No
399 -65,783 No -41,313 No -23,327 No
Chihuahua
400 35,240 Yes 59,801 Yes 78,294 Yes
528 8,605 Yes 33,204 Yes 51,378 Yes
200 0 No 0 No 0 No
399 -89,820 No -59,996 No -38,435 No
Acapulco
400 13,447 Yes 43,356 Yes 65,461 Yes
528 -14,524 No 15,471 Yes 37,653 Yes
1B
200 0 No 0 No 0 No
399 -86,902 No -60,172 No -40,245 No
Poza Rica
400 12,847 Yes 39,645 Yes 59,641 Yes
528 -7,510 No 19,445 Yes 39,539 Yes
200 0 No 0 No 0 No
399 -76,288 No -49,858 No -30,767 No
Riviera Maya
400 26,970 Yes 53,477 Yes 72,645 Yes
528 6,800 Yes 33,354 Yes 53,027 Yes
238 0 No 0 No 0 No
849 -306,104 No -221,654 No -159,336 No
Cd. Juárez
850 -155,138 No -70,623 No -7,625 No
1,067 -57,450 No -9,352 No 26,362 Yes
238 0 No 0 No 0 No
849 -386,578 No -290,041 No -218,925 No
Monterrey
850 -226,099 No -129,507 No -58,334 No
1,067 -96,587 No -41,245 No -817 No
1C
238 0 No 0 No 0 No
849 -420,938 No -317,734 No -241,992 No
Tampico
850 -260,608 No -157,349 No -81,551 No
1,067 -93,855 No -34,917 No 9,003 Yes
238 0 No 0 No 0 No
849 -348,220 No -256,938 No -189,154 No
Mérida
850 -177,988 No -86,650 No -18,810 No
1,067 -44,333 No 8,035 Yes 46,886 Yes
300 0 No 0 No 0 No
999 -418,671 No -306,618 No -224,242 No
Mazatlán
1,000 -202,632 No -90,515 No -8,076 No
1,320 -125,892 No -43,719 No 17,118 Yes
300 0 No 0 No 0 No
999 -285,601 No -197,525 No -132,006 No
La Paz
1,000 -59,872 No 28,904 Yes 94,423 Yes
1,320 -33,570 No 31,262 Yes 79,311 Yes
1D
300 0 No 0 No 0 No
999 -292,163 No -209,087 No -148,028 No
Matamoros
1,000 -92,894 No -10,526 No 50,594 Yes
1,320 -55,036 No 5,368 Yes 50,465 Yes
300 0 No 0 No 0 No
999 -316,729 No -222,208 No -152,221 No
Cd. Altamirano
1,000 -106,783 No -11,553 No 58,434 Yes
1,320 -57,896 No 11,390 Yes 63,005 Yes
163
Annex

Cost Cost Cost
Tariff City
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$]
500 0 No 0 No 0 No
1,999 -785,991 No -567,164 No -405,810 No
Culiacán
2,000 -444,938 No -226,048 No -64,004 No
2,640 -290,602 No -136,350 No -22,647 No
500 0 No 0 No 0 No
1999 -538,471 No -347,748 No -207,472 No
Guaymas
2,000 -196,630 No -6,515 No 133,837 Yes
2,640 -112,041 No 21,752 Yes 120,825 Yes
1E
500 0 No 0 No 0 No
1,999 -761,027 No -557,732 No -407,638 No
Reynosa
2,000 -455,068 No -251,712 No -101,557 No
2,640 -280,068 No -136,762 No -30,986 No
500 0 No 0 No 0 No
Piedras 1999 -820,935 No -606,401 No -447,560 No
Negras 2,000 -514,975 No -300,385 No -141,489 No
2,640 -346,912 No -195,108 No -83,538 No
725 0 No 0 No 0 No
2,499 -722,822 No -531,723 No -390,542 No
Mexicali
2,750 -938,276 No -673,712 No -478,073 No
870 -136,807 No -102,144 No -75,609 No
725 0 No 0 No 0 No
San Luis Rio 2499 -755,386 No -567,686 No -428,910 No
Colorado 2,750 -897,782 No -637,831 No -445,666 No
870 -138,046 No -103,558 No -77,982 No
1F
725 0 No 0 No 0 No
2,499 -701,861 No -516,290 No -379,344 No
Cd. Obregón
2,750 -794,302 No -544,197 No -358,931 No
870 -131,756 No -98,384 No -73,070 No
725 0 No 0 No 0 No
2499 -634,571 No -455,976 No -324,551 No
Hermosillo
2,750 -730,123 No -483,347 No -300,951 No
870 -120,392 No -87,156 No -63,509 No
Source: Own display
164
Annex
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
Consumption difference difference difference difference difference difference
Tariff City
PV (full) - PV (partial) - PV (full) - PV (partial) - PV (full) - PV (partial) -
tariff tariff tariff tariff tariff tariff
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
140 -48,731 0 -34,345 0 -23,711 0
249 -42,282 8,448 -14,259 23,427 6,454 32,547
Durango
250 63,913 114,580 92,061 128,626 112,867 140,126
300 69,065 112,636 103,469 121,915 128,897 128,633
140 -55,936 0 -40,469 0 -29,036 0
249 -56,315 4,998 -26,187 19,352 -3,919 30,017
Oaxaca
250 54,092 115,385 84,355 129,839 106,723 141,827
300 56,967 65,495 93,954 63,113 121,293 77,102
140 -51,312 0 -36,538 0 -25,618 0
249 -47,308 6,189 -18,531 21,079 2,739 31,931
1 Guadalajara
250 58,864 112,309 87,770 127,293 109,135 138,238
300 62,894 64,329 98,223 80,729 124,336 76,273
140 -53,111 0 -38,067 0 -26,948 0
249 -50,812 7,144 -21,510 21,193 149 31,447
Puebla
250 59,620 117,542 89,053 131,693 110,808 142,050
300 63,723 57,920 99,697 64,363 126,286 69,249
140 -64,690 0 -47,909 0 -35,506 0
Distrito 249 -73,365 -3,754 -40,680 12,243 -16,521 23,991
Federal 250 55,739 125,358 88,570 141,439 112,837 153,271
300 58,562 76,017 98,689 83,382 128,349 88,867
150 -85,646 0 -66,078 0 -51,614 0
299 -108,066 -26,136 -65,172 -3,056 -33,467 13,937
Cuautla
300 16,955 98,909 60,006 122,069 91,826 139,141
360 11,584 59,511 64,028 68,825 102,791 87,929
150 -79,316 0 -60,697 0 -46,935 0
299 -94,189 -15,088 -53,377 7,156 -23,211 23,469
Tepic
300 25,752 104,872 66,714 127,196 96,990 143,588
360 22,395 68,049 72,294 77,129 109,175 83,758
1A
150 -73,950 0 -56,139 0 -42,975 0
299 -82,397 -12,564 -43,357 7,926 -14,501 23,083
Nogales
300 37,613 107,399 76,796 127,963 105,757 143,194
360 36,844 71,335 84,575 79,633 119,855 85,754
150 -73,376 0 -55,648 0 -42,544 0
299 -81,169 -11,466 -42,309 9,033 -13,587 24,199
Los Tuxtlas
300 43,950 113,621 82,952 134,207 111,779 149,681
360 44,470 65,331 91,981 73,635 127,098 79,754
165
Annex

Tariff City
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
200 -74,033 0 -52,690 0 -36,914 0
399 -58,166 12,647 -12,551 32,243 21,164 46,772
Chihuahua
400 91,072 161,826 136,809 181,555 170,614 196,087
528 109,010 122,689 170,358 142,476 215,703 157,282
200 -91,362 0 -67,422 0 -49,727 0
399 -95,107 378 -43,943 24,124 -6,127 41,676
Acapulco
400 57,375 152,855 108,675 176,725 146,593 194,333
528 62,809 112,500 131,620 136,496 182,480 154,218
1B
200 -104,517 0 -78,604 0 -59,450 0
399 -123,220 -7,975 -67,839 13,454 -26,906 29,351
Poza Rica
400 24,104 139,332 79,632 160,863 120,675 176,860
528 18,082 110,166 92,565 131,925 147,617 148,066
200 -89,027 0 -65,437 0 -48,001 0
399 -90,116 4,647 -39,701 25,636 -2,438 41,046
Riviera Maya
400 62,379 157,109 112,929 178,212 150,292 193,736
528 69,522 128,217 137,325 149,388 187,441 164,910
238 -132,505 0 -101,753 0 -79,023 0
849 -218,375 -72,784 -99,128 -5,210 -10,988 44,717
Cd. Juárez
850 4,217 149,779 123,609 217,448 211,855 267,631
1,067 -5,869 131,218 144,927 169,918 256,385 198,599
238 -163,238 0 -127,876 0 -101,738 0
849 -337,547 -138,233 -200,424 -61,079 -99,072 -4,174
Monterrey
850 -101,053 98,306 36,237 175,543 137,712 232,531
1,067 -137,333 104,200 36,068 148,337 164,234 180,971
1C
238 -154,595 0 -120,535 0 -95,361 0
849 -303,618 -158,978 -171,545 -76,488 -73,926 -15,759
Tampico
850 -67,341 77,344 64,891 159,915 162,629 220,724
1,067 -95,790 125,315 71,224 172,506 194,669 207,297
238 -146,529 0 -113,679 0 -89,399 0
849 -272,340 -102,693 -144,959 -29,542 -50,808 24,698
Mérida
850 -21,490 148,177 106,045 221,411 200,311 275,734
1,067 -37,998 169,081 123,083 211,080 242,143 242,139
300 -178,375 0 -137,637 0 -107,526 0
999 -300,532 -116,238 -156,244 -26,695 -49,597 39,319
Mazatlán
1,000 17,614 201,938 162,050 291,575 268,807 357,682
1,320 11,100 181,597 202,941 247,314 344,736 295,806
300 -138,957 0 -104,131 0 -78,391 0
999 -160,921 -24,812 -37,575 45,859 53,594 98,258
La Paz
1,000 171,528 307,602 295,001 378,557 386,264 430,956
1,320 229,198 240,662 393,195 292,796 514,411 331,422
1D
300 -162,772 0 -124,374 0 -95,993 0
999 -245,271 -60,479 -109,272 5,820 -8,751 54,641
Matamoros
1,000 47,181 232,313 183,319 298,315 283,943 347,224
1,320 50,550 189,789 231,370 238,391 365,019 274,167
300 -145,587 0 -109,779 0 -83,312 0
999 -183,749 -43,038 -56,924 32,642 36,816 88,632
Cd. Altamirano
1,000 125,500 266,185 252,455 342,163 346,292 398,152
1,320 153,144 224,995 321,767 280,698 446,401 321,591
166
Annex

Tariff City
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
500 -327,670 0 -256,399 0 -203,720 0
1,999 -533,572 -178,587 -237,383 -3,540 -18,461 125,726
Culiacán
2,000 -31,717 323,275 264,622 498,415 483,655 627,952
2,640 -52,874 260,801 339,494 384,094 629,504 475,317
500 -234,082 0 -176,849 0 -134,546 0
1999 -144,637 57,953 93,211 210,295 269,012 322,718
Guaymas
2,000 357,415 560,228 595,384 712,422 771,274 824,956
2,640 462,356 433,195 777,439 540,555 1,010,327 619,948
1E
500 -360,706 0 -284,479 0 -228,138 0
1,999 -670,863 -211,058 -354,080 -48,422 -119,937 71,735
Reynosa
2,000 -220,580 239,240 96,363 401,965 330,625 522,212
2,640 -302,794 227,948 116,854 342,593 427,029 427,374
500 -361,734 0 -285,353 0 -228,897 0
Piedras 1999 -675,133 -247,777 -357,710 -76,062 -123,093 50,998
Negras 2,000 -224,853 202,522 92,731 374,318 327,467 501,460
2,640 -308,451 166,167 112,045 287,349 422,848 376,926
725 -403,982 0 -311,109 0 -242,463 0
2,499 -606,403 -209,202 -278,161 -56,306 -35,547 56,703
Mexicali
2,750 -588,820 -197,122 -227,276 14,642 39,953 171,234
870 -442,448 -43,380 -330,336 -15,499 -247,471 5,644
725 -453,337 0 -353,060 0 -278,942 0
San Luis Rio 2499 -780,837 -272,663 -426,429 -122,533 -164,476 -11,570
Colorado 2,750 -655,066 -159,186 -264,702 48,775 23,828 202,492
870 -502,026 -48,175 -380,978 -20,551 -291,507 -74
1F
725 -403,795 0 -310,949 0 -242,324 0
2,499 -605,741 -202,941 -277,598 -54,450 -35,057 55,311
Cd. Obregón
2,750 -462,206 -50,267 -100,771 149,919 166,376 297,962
870 -442,222 -44,137 -330,144 -17,410 -247,304 2,682
725 -350,887 0 -265,978 0 -203,218 0
2499 -418,749 -136,786 -118,655 5,916 103,154 111,282
Hermosillo
2,750 -256,243 29,163 74,297 226,688 318,610 372,744
870 -378,355 -29,672 -275,857 -3,143 -200,097 15,987
Source: Own display
167
Annex
Tariff City
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
140 -12,765 0 -3,773 0 2,873 0
249 27,776 43,108 45,290 53,088 58,236 58,209
Durango
250 134,284 149,573 151,876 158,287 164,879 166,121
300 155,073 135,632 176,575 141,578 192,468 145,630
140 -17,267 0 -7,600 0 -455 0
249 19,005 40,992 37,835 50,013 51,753 56,678
Oaxaca
250 129,749 151,711 148,663 160,833 162,643 168,822
300 149,436 82,158 172,553 77,111 189,639 89,433
140 -14,377 0 -5,144 0 1,681 0
249 24,634 43,182 42,620 52,406 55,913 59,259
1 Guadalajara
250 131,128 149,636 149,194 158,953 162,547 165,900
300 151,216 81,326 173,297 95,393 189,617 88,937
140 -15,502 0 -6,099 0 850 0
249 22,444 42,138 40,758 50,854 54,295 57,443
Puebla
250 133,203 152,869 151,599 161,687 165,196 168,378
300 153,658 73,917 176,142 78,027 192,760 81,247
140 -22,738 0 -12,251 0 -4,499 0
Distrito 249 8,348 36,238 28,777 46,236 43,876 53,652
Federal 250 137,817 165,684 158,337 175,765 173,504 183,265
300 158,880 94,347 183,960 99,045 202,497 102,531
150 -36,725 0 -24,494 0 -15,455 0
299 -830 31,520 25,979 45,935 45,794 56,595
Cuautla
300 124,582 156,898 151,489 171,393 171,377 182,133
360 142,694 82,840 175,472 88,488 199,698 105,259
150 -32,768 0 -21,131 0 -12,530 0
299 7,843 40,568 33,351 54,481 52,205 64,795
Tepic
300 128,157 160,862 153,758 174,853 172,680 185,246
360 147,142 90,712 178,329 96,459 201,380 100,422
1A
150 -29,424 0 -18,292 0 -10,065 0
299 15,204 38,760 39,604 51,584 57,639 61,076
Nogales
300 135,570 159,056 160,059 171,955 178,160 181,520
360 156,173 91,998 186,005 97,296 208,055 101,085
150 -29,056 0 -17,976 0 -9,786 0
299 15,981 39,858 40,268 52,692 58,220 62,192
Los Tuxtlas
300 141,454 165,278 165,830 178,198 183,847 187,674
360 163,248 85,994 192,942 91,299 214,890 95,085
168
Annex

Tariff City
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
200 -20,674 0 -7,334 0 2,526 0
399 55,871 61,637 84,380 73,901 105,452 83,099
Chihuahua
400 205,414 211,150 233,999 223,547 255,128 232,414
528 262,381 172,013 300,723 184,468 329,064 193,942
200 -31,512 0 -16,550 0 -5,490 0
399 32,802 59,700 64,779 74,448 88,415 85,668
Acapulco
400 185,626 212,510 217,688 227,382 241,387 238,325
528 234,836 172,489 277,843 187,486 309,630 198,543
1B
200 -39,734 0 -23,538 0 -11,567 0
399 15,231 45,681 49,844 59,113 75,428 69,010
Poza Rica
400 162,925 193,322 197,630 206,854 223,282 216,852
528 204,288 164,489 250,839 178,250 285,247 188,392
200 -30,053 0 -15,309 0 -4,411 0
399 35,921 56,970 67,431 69,961 90,720 79,706
Riviera Maya
400 188,753 209,766 220,347 222,870 243,698 232,729
528 239,031 181,207 281,409 194,379 312,731 203,903
238 -55,624 0 -36,404 0 -22,197 0
849 79,743 96,184 154,273 138,430 209,360 169,693
Cd. Juárez
850 302,697 319,080 377,317 361,421 432,471 392,607
1,067 371,121 227,867 465,369 252,236 535,030 270,252
238 -74,832 0 -52,730 0 -36,394 0
849 5,261 54,397 90,963 102,557 154,308 138,133
Monterrey
850 242,171 291,270 327,977 339,512 391,399 375,171
1,067 296,169 214,512 404,545 241,986 484,649 262,622
1C
238 -69,445 0 -48,158 0 -32,424 0
849 26,564 46,983 109,109 98,479 170,121 136,545
Tampico
850 263,241 283,639 345,886 335,215 406,972 373,362
1,067 321,745 243,293 426,129 272,821 503,282 294,280
238 -64,404 0 -43,873 0 -28,697 0
849 46,113 80,606 125,726 126,429 184,570 160,339
Mérida
850 297,349 331,809 377,058 377,715 435,974 411,708
1,067 364,705 274,061 465,381 300,396 539,793 319,791
300 -76,529 0 -51,068 0 -32,248 0
999 60,188 107,386 150,368 163,270 217,022 204,621
Mazatlán
1,000 378,704 425,896 468,977 481,872 535,700 523,317
1,320 490,702 345,899 610,603 386,954 699,225 417,117
300 -51,893 0 -30,127 0 -14,039 0
999 147,445 152,155 224,536 196,498 281,517 229,234
La Paz
1,000 480,211 484,902 557,381 529,195 614,420 561,931
1,320 639,191 370,637 741,690 403,441 817,449 427,737
1D
300 -66,777 0 -42,779 0 -25,040 0
999 94,726 104,823 179,725 146,127 242,551 176,618
Matamoros
1,000 387,527 397,615 472,613 438,955 535,503 469,535
1,320 502,599 311,100 615,611 341,704 699,142 363,816
300 -56,067 0 -33,687 0 -17,145 0
999 133,314 146,260 212,580 193,612 271,167 228,605
Cd. Altamirano
1,000 442,889 455,816 522,236 503,132 580,884 538,126
1,320 574,701 363,968 680,091 399,009 757,987 424,239
169
Annex

Tariff City
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
500 -149,492 0 -104,947 0 -72,023 0
1,999 206,900 258,997 392,018 368,390 528,844 449,332
Culiacán
2,000 709,130 761,192 894,342 870,678 1,031,237 951,557
2,640 928,045 569,076 1,173,275 646,045 1,354,532 703,274
500 -90,999 0 -55,228 0 -28,789 0
1999 449,984 438,548 598,640 533,567 708,515 603,998
Guaymas
2,000 952,337 940,823 1,101,068 1,036,027 1,210,999 1,106,570
2,640 1,250,064 701,144 1,446,991 768,512 1,592,546 818,244
1E
500 -170,139 0 -122,498 0 -87,284 0
1,999 121,093 195,532 319,082 297,180 465,422 372,345
Reynosa
2,000 571,777 646,163 769,866 747,900 916,280 823,155
2,640 746,327 514,560 1,008,607 586,214 1,202,466 639,334
500 -170,782 0 -123,043 0 -87,759 0
Piedras 1999 118,424 181,809 316,814 289,202 463,449 368,604
Negras 2,000 569,107 632,441 767,597 739,916 914,306 819,400
2,640 742,791 469,110 1,005,601 544,634 1,199,853 600,883
725 -171,798 0 -113,752 0 -70,848 0
2,499 214,203 173,059 419,355 268,632 570,988 339,316
Mexicali
2,750 315,041 332,445 541,006 464,890 708,024 562,827
870 -162,168 27,273 -92,098 44,822 -40,308 57,967
725 -202,645 0 -139,971 0 -93,648 0
San Luis Rio 2499 105,182 102,599 326,687 196,407 490,408 265,711
Colorado 2,750 320,844 360,716 564,821 490,691 745,153 586,753
870 -199,405 21,145 -123,749 38,438 -67,830 51,250
1F
725 -171,681 0 -113,652 0 -70,762 0
2,499 214,617 168,322 419,706 261,157 571,294 329,926
Cd. Obregón
2,750 441,381 450,305 667,278 575,506 834,245 667,892
870 -162,027 22,850 -91,978 39,579 -40,203 52,006
725 -138,613 0 -85,545 0 -46,320 0
2499 331,487 219,813 519,046 308,859 657,676 374,899
Hermosillo
2,750 570,108 523,070 776,696 646,609 929,391 738,008
870 -122,110 36,316 -58,049 52,846 -10,699 64,978
Source: Own display
170
Annex
Annex 29: Scenario 1 - Cost comparison for different discount rates (residential sector)
Discount rate 4% Discount rate 8% Discount rate 12%
Cost Cost Cost
Cost
Tariff City difference PV
(full) - tariff
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$]
140 -57,705 0 No 0 No 0 No
249 -59,902 609 Yes -29,095 No -46,663 No
Durango
250 45,927 105,524 Yes 42,502 Yes 5,140 Yes
300 47,106 106,501 Yes 53,116 Yes 21,453 Yes
140 -65,574 0 No 0 No 0 No
249 -75,230 -4,221 No -33,386 No -50,631 No
Oaxaca
250 34,794 105,712 Yes 41,303 Yes 3,122 Yes
300 33,405 52,205 Yes 21,700 Yes 3,614 Yes
140 -60,523 0 No 0 No 0 No
249 -65,392 -3,011 No -33,223 No -51,088 No
1 Guadalajara
250 40,412 102,661 Yes 38,558 Yes 561 Yes
300 40,366 69,262 Yes 32,677 Yes 10,981 Yes
140 -62,488 0 No 0 No 0 No
249 -69,219 -1,618 No -30,615 No -47,763 No
Puebla
250 40,832 108,328 Yes 44,083 Yes 5,997 Yes
300 40,784 53,707 Yes 23,056 Yes 4,883 Yes
140 -75,135 0 No 0 No 0 No
Distrito 249 -93,853 -13,868 No -43,285 No -60,671 No
Federal 250 34,811 114,723 Yes 44,137 Yes 2,295 Yes
300 33,009 71,140 Yes 32,964 Yes 10,325 Yes
150 -97,799 0 No 0 No 0 No
299 -134,921 -40,630 No -76,469 No -97,630 No
Cuautla
300 -10,336 83,901 Yes 8,182 Yes -36,669 No
360 -21,637 53,555 Yes 16,984 Yes -4,690 No
150 -90,885 0 No 0 No 0 No
299 -119,764 -29,167 No -66,989 No -89,332 No
Tepic
300 -241 90,292 Yes 14,202 Yes -30,875 No
360 -9,245 62,092 Yes 23,142 Yes 53 Yes
1A
150 -85,021 0 No 0 No 0 No
299 -106,881 -25,587 No -60,899 No -81,760 No
Nogales
300 12,715 93,870 Yes 20,290 Yes -23,304 No
360 6,537 65,868 Yes 27,376 Yes 4,556 Yes
150 -84,397 0 No 0 No 0 No
299 -105,542 -24,483 No -60,145 No -81,215 No
Los Tuxtlas
300 19,149 100,097 Yes 24,540 Yes -20,230 No
360 14,282 59,886 Yes 23,294 Yes 1,603 Yes
171
Annex

Cost Cost Cost
Cost
(full) - tariff
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$]
200 -87,341 0 No 0 No 0 No
399 -86,877 198 Yes -41,313 No -65,862 No
Chihuahua
400 61,881 148,851 Yes 59,801 Yes 7,009 Yes
528 69,891 109,878 Yes 33,204 Yes -12,234 No
200 -106,266 0 No 0 No 0 No
399 -127,229 -14,547 No -59,996 No -86,862 No
Acapulco
400 24,754 137,387 Yes 43,356 Yes -12,371 No
528 19,092 97,011 Yes 15,471 Yes -32,835 No
1B
200 -120,634 0 No 0 No 0 No
399 -157,935 -21,608 No -60,172 No -82,961 No
Poza Rica
400 -11,103 125,147 Yes 39,645 Yes -11,027 No
528 -29,103 96,032 Yes 19,445 Yes -25,931 No
200 -103,716 0 No 0 No 0 No
399 -121,778 -8,437 No -49,858 No -74,347 No
Riviera Maya
400 30,220 143,472 Yes 53,477 Yes 132 Yes
528 26,423 114,470 Yes 33,354 Yes -14,716 No
238 -151,609 0 No 0 No 0 No
849 -293,253 -115,386 No -221,654 No -284,403 No
Cd. Juárez
850 -71,353 106,414 Yes -70,623 No -175,414 No
1,067 -101,286 106,310 Yes -9,352 No -77,845 No
238 -185,177 0 No 0 No 0 No
849 -423,415 -186,445 No -290,041 No -351,150 No
Monterrey
850 -187,665 49,282 Yes -129,507 No -235,285 No
1,067 -246,701 76,095 Yes -41,245 No -110,705 No
1C
238 -175,733 0 No 0 No 0 No
849 -386,382 -210,505 No -317,734 No -380,971 No
Tampico
850 -150,845 25,004 Yes -157,349 No -265,214 No
1,067 -201,228 95,086 Yes -34,917 No -111,882 No
238 -166,923 0 No 0 No 0 No
849 -352,218 -149,112 No -256,938 No -320,580 No
Mérida
850 -102,144 100,908 Yes -86,650 No -197,658 No
1,067 -139,837 141,992 Yes 8,035 Yes -71,308 No
300 -203,675 0 No 0 No 0 No
999 -391,035 -172,350 No -306,618 No -385,878 No
Mazatlán
1,000 -73,842 144,804 Yes -90,515 No -229,806 No
1,320 -110,338 139,523 Yes -43,719 No -152,207 No
300 -160,622 0 No 0 No 0 No
999 -238,548 -69,824 No -197,525 No -272,988 No
La Paz
1,000 92,924 261,975 Yes 28,904 Yes -109,158 No
1,320 124,791 207,125 Yes 31,262 Yes -72,919 No
1D
300 -186,633 0 No 0 No 0 No
999 -330,677 -101,830 No -209,087 No -272,433 No
Matamoros
1,000 -39,103 189,620 Yes -10,526 No -129,054 No
1,320 -64,020 158,491 Yes 5,368 Yes -85,324 No
300 -167,855 0 No 0 No 0 No
Cd. 999 -263,516 -90,931 No -222,208 No -299,768 No
Altamirano 1,000 44,816 217,753 Yes -11,553 No -147,351 No
1,320 46,016 189,180 Yes 11,390 Yes -93,917 No
172
Annex

Cost Cost Cost
Cost
(full) - tariff
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$]
500 -371,890 0 No 0 No 0 No
1,999 -719,577 -288,850 No -567,164 No -731,514 No
Culiacán
2,000 -219,173 211,493 Yes -226,048 No -484,991 No
2,640 -301,045 182,105 Yes -136,350 No -324,840 No
500 -269,670 0 No 0 No 0 No
1999 -294,772 -38,267 No -347,748 No -530,744 No
Guaymas
2,000 205,848 462,249 Yes -6,515 No -284,136 No
2,640 261,704 364,221 Yes 21,752 Yes -181,094 No
1E
500 -407,973 0 No 0 No 0 No
1,999 -869,530 -313,414 No -557,732 No -701,956 No
Reynosa
2,000 -420,565 135,501 Yes -251,712 No -480,826 No
2,640 -567,556 154,778 Yes -136,762 No -309,310 No
500 -409,095 0 No 0 No 0 No
Piedras 1999 -874,194 -356,064 No -606,401 No -754,148 No
Negras 2,000 -425,232 92,845 Yes -300,385 No -533,022 No
2,640 -573,734 89,201 Yes -195,108 No -363,325 No
725 -461,667 0 No 0 No 0 No
2,499 -812,497 -305,426 No -531,723 No -665,295 No
Mexicali
2,750 -816,037 -330,799 No -673,712 No -876,231 No
870 -512,205 -61,733 No -102,144 No -125,991 No
725 -515,574 0 No 0 No 0 No
San Luis Rio 2499 -1,003,018 -366,872 No -567,686 No -686,137 No
Colorado 2,750 -900,343 -290,366 No -637,831 No -843,075 No
870 -577,277 -65,748 No -103,558 No -125,863 No
1F
725 -461,463 0 No 0 No 0 No
2,499 -811,774 -296,416 No -516,290 No -646,072 No
Cd. Obregón
2,750 -689,696 -176,967 No -544,197 No -761,227 No
870 -511,958 -61,082 No -98,384 No -120,393 No
725 -403,675 0 No 0 No 0 No
2499 -607,537 -226,498 No -455,976 No -591,497 No
Hermosillo
2,750 -464,737 -96,060 No -483,347 No -712,307 No
870 -442,200 -46,086 No -87,156 No -111,406 No
Source: Own display
173
Annex
Cost Cost Cost
Cost Cost Cost
Consumption difference PV difference PV difference PV
Tariff City difference PV difference PV difference PV
(partial) - (partial) - (partial) -
(full) - tariff (full) - tariff (full) - tariff
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
140 -14,670 0 -34,345 0 -45,968 0
249 48,561 68,924 -14,259 23,427 -51,451 -3,539
Durango
250 204,668 223,078 92,061 128,626 25,292 72,577
300 236,887 201,583 103,469 121,915 24,363 74,627
140 -20,965 0 -40,469 0 -51,985 0
249 36,298 64,119 -26,187 19,352 -63,172 -7,178
Oaxaca
250 198,615 226,411 84,355 129,839 16,612 72,534
300 229,350 108,809 93,954 63,113 13,686 35,996
140 -16,925 0 -36,538 0 -48,123 0
249 44,168 67,427 -18,531 21,079 -55,649 -6,389
1 Guadalajara
250 200,256 223,457 87,770 127,293 21,075 70,231
300 231,494 135,401 98,223 80,729 19,209 48,281
140 -18,497 0 -38,067 0 -49,626 0
249 41,107 65,651 -21,510 21,193 -58,576 -5,155
Puebla
250 203,445 227,962 89,053 131,693 21,228 74,566
300 235,253 110,252 99,697 64,363 19,328 37,130
140 -28,614 0 -47,909 0 -59,296 0
Distrito 249 21,400 57,588 -40,680 12,243 -77,412 -14,624
Federal 250 211,160 247,295 88,570 141,439 15,891 78,624
300 244,070 140,454 98,689 83,382 12,503 49,510
150 -48,327 0 -66,078 0 -76,534 0
299 10,813 52,663 -65,172 -3,056 -110,119 -36,052
Cuautla
300 194,631 236,404 60,006 122,069 -19,778 54,250
360 223,806 123,787 64,028 68,825 -30,655 36,215
150 -42,795 0 -60,697 0 -71,247 0
299 22,938 65,683 -53,377 7,156 -98,529 -27,512
Tepic
300 199,283 241,973 66,714 127,196 -11,857 59,110
360 229,610 135,567 72,294 77,129 -20,939 42,453
1A
150 -38,122 0 -56,139 0 -66,762 0
299 33,228 62,535 -43,357 7,926 -88,677 -24,423
Nogales
300 209,648 238,821 76,796 127,963 -1,951 62,198
360 242,235 137,293 84,575 79,633 -8,871 45,416
150 -37,605 0 -55,648 0 -66,286 0
299 34,316 64,158 -42,309 9,033 -87,654 -23,622
Los Tuxtlas
300 218,219 247,971 82,952 134,207 2,769 66,716
360 252,541 128,504 91,981 73,635 -3,189 41,077
174
Annex

Cost Cost Cost
Cost Cost Cost
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
200 -24,309 0 -52,690 0 -69,453 0
399 94,664 95,836 -12,551 32,243 -76,039 -5,448
Chihuahua
400 313,832 315,021 136,809 181,555 31,850 102,355
528 401,687 257,756 170,358 142,476 33,209 74,080
200 -39,463 0 -67,422 0 -83,924 0
399 62,416 94,045 -43,943 24,124 -106,897 -17,308
Acapulco
400 286,395 318,050 108,675 176,725 3,327 92,875
528 363,417 259,488 131,620 136,496 -5,775 63,537
1B
200 -50,957 0 -78,604 0 -94,911 0
399 37,851 72,969 -67,839 13,454 -130,377 -21,804
Poza Rica
400 254,317 289,364 79,632 160,863 -23,893 84,621
528 320,244 247,349 92,565 131,925 -42,358 63,453
200 -37,422 0 -65,437 0 -81,974 0
399 66,777 89,264 -39,701 25,636 -102,729 -12,070
Riviera Maya
400 290,768 313,232 112,929 178,212 7,507 98,095
528 369,282 271,383 137,325 149,388 -168 77,009
238 -72,884 0 -101,753 0 -118,763 0
849 150,295 159,900 -99,128 -5,210 -246,765 -102,992
Cd. Juárez
850 477,044 486,562 123,609 217,448 -85,819 57,880
1,067 586,117 345,002 144,927 169,918 -116,492 66,079
238 -99,738 0 -127,876 0 -144,431 0
849 46,165 101,353 -200,424 -61,079 -346,296 -157,228
Monterrey
850 393,371 448,478 36,237 175,543 -175,307 13,747
1,067 482,625 326,595 36,068 148,337 -228,437 42,638
1C
238 -92,211 0 -120,535 0 -137,209 0
849 75,965 91,990 -171,545 -76,488 -317,988 -176,205
Tampico
850 422,827 438,793 64,891 159,915 -147,152 -5,388
1,067 518,311 369,785 71,224 172,506 -193,625 55,521
238 -85,162 0 -113,679 0 -130,472 0
849 103,295 138,627 -144,959 -29,542 -291,865 -129,115
Mérida
850 471,490 506,752 106,045 221,411 -110,480 52,229
1,067 579,599 413,482 123,083 211,080 -147,394 91,027
300 -100,718 0 -137,637 0 -159,385 0
999 128,662 182,447 -156,244 -26,695 -324,848 -150,537
Mazatlán
1,000 595,445 649,215 162,050 291,575 -94,767 79,514
1,320 772,857 525,273 202,941 247,314 -134,766 82,481
300 -66,275 0 -104,131 0 -126,463 0
999 250,652 242,897 -37,575 45,859 -208,246 -70,876
La Paz
1,000 738,309 730,419 295,001 378,557 32,200 169,844
1,320 982,638 558,102 393,195 292,796 43,762 135,418
1D
300 -87,084 0 -124,374 0 -146,354 0
999 176,948 172,175 -109,272 5,820 -278,694 -92,709
Matamoros
1,000 606,046 601,174 183,319 298,315 -67,198 118,692
1,320 787,199 469,828 231,370 238,391 -98,019 101,119
300 -72,116 0 -109,779 0 -131,991 0
Cd. 999 230,921 235,579 -56,924 32,642 -227,352 -87,575
Altamirano 1,000 684,596 689,138 252,455 342,163 -3,695 136,375
1,320 889,434 549,316 321,767 280,698 -14,709 121,370
175
Annex

Cost Cost Cost
Cost Cost Cost
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
500 -199,071 0 -256,399 0 -290,133 0
1,999 386,248 428,613 -237,383 -3,540 -606,529 -259,480
Culiacán
2,000 1,122,238 1,164,545 264,622 498,415 -243,529 103,473
2,640 1,469,959 868,361 339,494 384,094 -330,316 96,959
500 -117,295 0 -176,849 0 -211,969 0
1999 726,093 685,205 93,211 210,295 -281,694 -71,151
Guaymas
2,000 1,462,255 1,421,391 595,384 712,422 81,471 291,927
2,640 1,920,158 1,057,984 777,439 540,555 100,000 233,646
1E
500 -227,938 0 -284,479 0 -317,725 0
1,999 266,286 332,136 -354,080 -48,422 -721,193 -273,767
Reynosa
2,000 926,745 992,504 96,363 401,965 -395,515 51,875
2,640 1,211,327 786,168 116,854 342,593 -531,450 79,593
500 -228,836 0 -285,353 0 -318,583 0
Piedras 1999 262,555 314,567 -357,710 -76,062 -724,759 -307,349
Negras 2,000 923,012 974,925 92,731 374,318 -399,084 18,289
2,640 1,206,384 721,153 112,045 287,349 -536,174 30,183
725 -225,699 0 -311,109 0 -361,428 0
2,499 405,940 296,482 -278,161 -56,306 -683,084 -265,199
Mexicali
2,750 563,043 546,601 -227,276 14,642 -695,151 -300,425
870 -206,194 47,644 -330,336 -15,499 -403,579 -52,883
725 -268,825 0 -353,060 0 -402,648 0
San Luis Rio 2499 253,523 192,440 -426,429 -122,533 -828,770 -308,972
Colorado 2,750 579,629 586,901 -264,702 48,775 -764,534 -269,973
870 -258,252 38,687 -380,978 -20,551 -453,339 -55,617
1F
725 -225,536 0 -310,949 0 -361,271 0
2,499 406,518 288,319 -277,598 -54,450 -682,531 -257,409
Cd. Obregón
2,750 748,146 716,067 -100,771 149,919 -603,459 -185,511
870 -205,996 40,957 -330,144 -17,410 -403,390 -51,964
725 -179,306 0 -265,978 0 -317,083 0
2499 569,908 362,006 -118,655 5,916 -526,358 -204,984
Hermosillo
2,750 928,113 821,953 74,297 226,688 -431,441 -126,052
870 -150,190 60,697 -275,857 -3,143 -350,049 -40,950
Source: Own display
176
Annex
Cost Cost Cost
Cost Cost Cost
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
140 16,757 0 -3,773 0 -15,929 0
249 109,775 99,415 45,290 53,088 7,060 25,605
Durango
250 266,156 253,569 151,876 158,287 84,064 101,721
300 312,039 221,796 176,575 141,578 96,197 93,948
140 12,823 0 -7,600 0 -19,689 0
249 102,112 95,638 37,835 50,013 -265 22,949
Oaxaca
250 264,722 258,272 148,663 160,833 79,799 102,988
300 310,147 123,198 172,553 77,111 90,915 49,749
140 15,348 0 -5,144 0 -17,276 0
249 107,030 99,630 42,620 52,406 4,436 24,393
1 Guadalajara
250 263,399 256,004 149,194 158,953 81,429 101,340
300 308,669 150,475 173,297 95,393 92,975 62,690
140 14,366 0 -6,099 0 -18,215 0
249 105,117 96,141 40,758 50,854 2,607 23,989
Puebla
250 267,741 258,795 151,599 161,687 82,685 104,038
300 313,837 124,298 176,142 78,027 94,442 50,556
140 8,042 0 -12,251 0 -24,259 0
Distrito 249 92,800 92,533 28,777 46,236 -9,166 18,777
Federal 250 282,878 282,583 158,337 175,765 84,442 112,353
300 331,727 156,556 183,960 99,045 96,288 64,901
150 -5,580 0 -24,494 0 -35,676 0
299 104,514 103,024 25,979 45,935 -20,556 12,085
Cuautla
300 288,674 287,108 151,489 171,393 70,112 102,715
360 338,368 144,000 175,472 88,488 78,847 55,535
150 -2,123 0 -21,131 0 -32,371 0
299 112,092 114,332 33,351 54,481 -13,312 18,988
Tepic
300 288,763 290,964 153,758 174,853 73,670 105,938
360 338,612 155,437 178,329 96,459 83,249 61,446
1A
150 784 0 -18,292 0 -29,575 0
299 118,509 107,415 39,604 51,584 -7,162 18,475
Nogales
300 295,240 284,044 160,059 171,955 79,862 105,423
360 346,503 155,450 186,005 97,296 90,791 62,772
150 1,121 0 -17,976 0 -29,270 0
299 119,203 109,038 40,268 52,692 -6,516 19,276
Los Tuxtlas
300 303,417 293,193 165,830 178,198 84,203 109,941
360 356,327 146,661 192,942 91,299 96,013 58,432
177
Annex

Cost Cost Cost
Cost Cost Cost
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
200 22,316 0 -7,334 0 -24,888 0
399 194,307 138,660 84,380 73,901 19,204 35,485
Chihuahua
400 413,742 358,188 233,999 223,547 127,347 143,616
528 535,700 300,923 300,723 184,468 161,302 115,340
200 12,834 0 -16,550 0 -33,938 0
399 174,180 145,777 64,779 74,448 -69 32,139
Acapulco
400 398,458 370,124 217,688 227,382 110,441 142,650
528 513,731 311,905 277,843 187,486 137,901 113,639
1B
200 5,650 0 -23,538 0 -40,804 0
399 158,827 119,904 49,844 59,113 -14,744 23,058
Poza Rica
400 375,616 336,642 197,630 206,854 92,050 129,811
528 482,947 294,969 250,839 178,250 113,160 108,971
200 14,109 0 -15,309 0 -32,719 0
399 176,906 134,829 67,431 69,961 2,537 31,483
Riviera Maya
400 401,191 359,140 220,347 222,870 113,054 141,975
528 517,397 317,633 281,409 194,379 141,405 121,217
238 -5,707 0 -36,404 0 -54,553 0
849 410,786 307,558 154,273 138,430 2,221 38,146
Cd. Juárez
850 737,851 634,563 377,317 361,421 163,470 199,344
1,067 915,524 429,623 465,369 252,236 198,367 146,963
238 -22,491 0 -52,730 0 -70,595 0
849 345,705 269,567 90,963 102,557 -59,986 3,557
Monterrey
850 693,274 617,035 327,977 339,512 111,350 174,859
1,067 861,412 422,864 404,545 241,986 133,621 134,655
1C
238 -17,808 0 -48,158 0 -66,092 0
849 364,472 271,852 109,109 98,479 -42,223 -4,286
Tampico
850 711,684 618,998 345,886 335,215 128,948 166,858
1,067 883,147 472,907 426,129 272,821 155,097 154,088
238 -13,403 0 -43,873 0 -61,881 0
849 381,553 298,961 125,726 126,429 -25,896 24,139
Mérida
850 750,086 667,429 377,058 377,715 155,811 205,810
1,067 931,474 505,297 465,381 300,396 188,940 178,788
300 -11,726 0 -51,068 0 -74,324 0
999 443,853 377,726 150,368 163,270 -23,578 36,118
Mazatlán
1,000 910,959 844,837 468,977 481,872 206,813 266,496
1,320 1,191,925 668,820 610,603 386,954 265,794 219,689
300 9,800 0 -30,127 0 -53,748 0
999 520,096 397,750 224,536 196,498 49,299 77,138
La Paz
1,000 1,008,030 885,272 557,381 529,195 290,009 317,858
1,320 1,340,883 671,844 741,690 403,441 386,185 244,136
1D
300 -3,205 0 -42,779 0 -66,180 0
999 474,032 316,408 179,725 146,127 5,269 45,154
Matamoros
1,000 903,434 745,750 472,613 438,955 217,056 256,882
1,320 1,182,192 576,032 615,611 341,704 279,529 202,633
300 6,105 0 -33,687 0 -57,225 0
999 507,965 401,053 212,580 193,612 37,456 70,590
Cd. Altamirano
1,000 961,924 854,612 522,236 503,132 261,385 294,540
1,320 1,257,784 670,937 680,091 399,009 337,372 237,620
178
Annex

Cost Cost Cost
Cost Cost Cost
[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]
500 -43,382 0 -104,947 0 -141,320 0
1,999 1,033,260 810,949 392,018 368,390 11,907 105,970
Culiacán
2,000 1,769,578 1,547,224 894,342 870,678 375,220 469,251
2,640 2,327,069 1,137,641 1,173,275 646,045 488,940 354,346
500 7,728 0 -55,228 0 -92,467 0
1999 1,245,663 1,017,522 598,640 533,567 214,929 246,489
Guaymas
2,000 1,982,088 1,754,051 1,101,068 1,036,027 578,345 609,895
2,640 2,608,444 1,292,320 1,446,991 768,512 757,887 457,632
1E
500 -61,424 0 -122,498 0 -158,565 0
1,999 958,284 687,407 319,082 297,180 -59,758 65,814
Reynosa
2,000 1,619,093 1,348,118 769,866 747,900 266,255 391,784
2,640 2,128,030 1,036,605 1,008,607 586,214 344,768 318,969
500 -61,985 0 -123,043 0 -159,101 0
Piedras 1999 955,952 690,051 316,814 289,202 -61,987 51,552
Negras 2,000 1,616,760 1,350,752 767,597 739,916 264,025 377,517
2,640 2,124,941 985,637 1,005,601 544,634 341,815 282,986
725 -22,821 0 -113,752 0 -167,509 0
2,499 1,122,971 630,513 419,355 268,632 2,279 54,079
Mexicali
2,750 1,352,821 1,009,448 541,006 464,890 59,747 141,979
870 38,710 109,654 -92,098 44,822 -169,492 6,388
725 -49,774 0 -139,971 0 -193,272 0
San Luis Rio 2499 1,027,711 520,303 326,687 196,407 -88,774 4,411
Colorado 2,750 1,432,362 1,041,182 564,821 490,691 50,538 164,245
870 6,174 99,326 -123,749 38,438 -200,591 2,344
1F
725 -22,718 0 -113,652 0 -167,411 0
2,499 1,123,333 612,757 419,706 261,157 2,625 52,700
Cd. Obregón
2,750 1,537,685 1,153,562 667,278 575,506 151,210 232,661
870 38,834 99,541 -91,978 39,579 -169,374 4,033
725 6,175 0 -85,545 0 -139,794 0
2499 1,225,451 673,425 519,046 308,859 100,234 92,681
Hermosillo
2,750 1,650,165 1,253,623 776,696 646,609 258,721 286,553
870 73,713 118,253 -58,049 52,846 -136,035 14,064
Source: Own display
179
Annex
Annex 32: Scenario 1 - Cost comparison for different discount rates (industry and services sectors)
Discount rate 4% 8% 12%
Radiation 6 kWh/m2/d 5 kWh/m2/d 4,5 kWh/m2/d 6 kWh/m2/d 5 kWh/m2/d 4,5 kWh/m2/d 6 kWh/m2/d 5 kWh/m2/d 4,5 kWh/m2/d
Average
charged Average
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
capacity consumption
Tariff difference difference difference difference difference difference difference difference difference
demand per per month of
PV - tariff PV - tariff PV - tariff PV - tariff PV - tariff PV - tariff PV - tariff PV - tariff PV - tariff
month of PV PV user
user
kW [kWh/month] $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
270 3,247 1,379 446 -32 -1,321 -1,966 -1,989 -2,933 -3,404
2 135 1,623 828 312 -16 -793 -1,376 -995 -1,760 -2,383
540 6,494 2,759 1,337 -64 -2,642 -5,898 -3,979 -5,865 -10,213
Source: Own display
180
Annex
Annex 33: Scenario 2 - Cost comparison for different discount rates (industry and service sectors)
Average
charged Average
capacity consumption Cost difference Cost difference Cost difference Cost difference Cost difference Cost difference Cost difference Cost difference Cost difference
Tariff
demand per per month of PV - tariff PV - tariff PV - tariff PV - tariff PV - tariff PV - tariff PV - tariff PV - tariff PV - tariff
month of PV PV user
user
kW [kWh/month] $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
270 9,349 6,730 5,420 4,636 2,827 1,923 1,819 496 -166
2 135 4,675 4,038 3,794 2,318 1,696 1,346 909 297 -116
540 18,699 13,460 16,261 9,272 5,655 5,770 3,638 992 -497
63 4,600 73,664 53,548 38,139 19,937 -1,226 -15,502 -12,153 -33,928 -47,518
26 2,300 38,999 25,499 19,899 10,555 -584 -8,088 -6,434 -16,156 -24,792
3 100 9,200 151,662 104,546 76,279 41,047 -2,394 -31,003 -25,020 -66,240 -95,035
100 2,300 38,999 25,499 19,899 10,555 -584 -8,088 -6,434 -16,156 -24,792
26 9,200 151,662 104,546 76,279 41,047 -2,394 -31,003 -25,020 -66,240 -95,035
50 5,300 6,436 -19,031 -36,459 -31,933 -56,790 -74,278 -54,821 -79,298 -96,812
10 2,650 3,218 -9,515 -17,554 -15,966 -28,395 -35,764 -27,410 -39,649 -46,613
Baja
99 10,600 12,872 -38,061 -71,567 -63,866 -113,580 -145,805 -109,641 -158,596 -190,037
Calfornia
99 2,650 3,218 -9,515 -17,554 -15,966 -28,395 -35,764 -27,410 -39,649 -46,613
10 10,600 12,872 -38,061 -71,567 -63,866 -113,580 -145,805 -109,641 -158,596 -190,037
50 5,300 23,814 -1,653 -18,864 -19,935 -44,792 -62,131 -46,043 -70,521 -87,924
10 2,650 11,907 -826 -9,082 -9,968 -22,396 -29,915 -23,022 -35,260 -42,334
O-M Central 99 10,600 47,627 -3,306 -37,029 -39,871 -89,585 -121,961 -92,086 -141,041 -172,592
99 2,650 11,907 -826 -9,082 -9,968 -22,396 -29,915 -23,022 -35,260 -42,334
10 10,600 47,627 -3,306 -37,029 -39,871 -89,585 -121,961 -92,086 -141,041 -172,592
50 5,300 13,407 -12,059 -29,400 -27,120 -51,977 -69,405 -51,299 -75,777 -93,246
10 2,650 6,704 -6,030 -14,156 -13,560 -25,988 -33,417 -25,650 -37,888 -44,896
Northeast 99 10,600 26,814 -24,119 -57,711 -54,240 -103,954 -136,240 -102,599 -151,554 -183,039
99 2,650 6,704 -6,030 -14,156 -13,560 -25,988 -33,417 -25,650 -37,888 -44,896
10 10,600 26,814 -24,119 -57,711 -54,240 -103,954 -136,240 -102,599 -151,554 -183,039
200 77,000 -296,527 -664,902 -909,060 -730,353 -1,090,165 -1,327,843 -988,907 -1,343,380 -1,577,040
110 38,500 -147,750 -331,493 -455,711 -363,913 -543,512 -665,646 -492,742 -669,754 -790,568
Baja
300 144,000 -400,886 -1,059,481 -1,497,901 -1,215,161 -1,859,263 -2,287,062 -1,700,556 -2,335,600 -2,756,789
Calfornia
300 38,500 -147,750 -331,493 -455,711 -363,913 -543,512 -665,646 -492,742 -669,754 -790,568
110 144,000 -400,886 -1,059,481 -1,497,901 -1,215,161 -1,859,263 -2,287,062 -1,700,556 -2,335,600 -2,756,789
200 77,000 -197,882 -566,201 -810,501 -662,250 -1,022,022 -1,259,799 -939,081 -1,293,526 -1,527,258
110 38,500 -98,599 -282,285 -406,303 -329,979 -509,539 -631,535 -467,916 -644,899 -765,612
H-M Central 300 144,000 -216,567 -874,878 -1,313,326 -1,087,910 -1,731,816 -2,159,634 -1,607,456 -2,242,357 -2,663,560
300 38,500 -98,599 -282,285 -406,303 -329,979 -509,539 -631,535 -467,916 -644,899 -765,612
110 144,000 -216,567 -874,878 -1,313,326 -1,087,910 -1,731,816 -2,159,634 -1,607,456 -2,242,357 -2,663,560
200 77,000 -316,432 -684,819 -928,948 -744,095 -1,103,915 -1,341,573 -998,961 -1,353,440 -1,587,086
110 38,500 -157,669 -341,423 -465,681 -370,760 -550,367 -672,529 -497,752 -674,770 -795,604
Northeast 300 144,000 -438,079 -1,096,732 -1,535,146 -1,240,839 -1,884,981 -2,312,775 -1,719,342 -2,354,416 -2,775,601
300 38,500 -157,669 -341,423 -465,681 -370,760 -550,367 -672,529 -497,752 -674,770 -795,604
110 144,000 -438,079 -1,096,732 -1,535,146 -1,240,839 -1,884,981 -2,312,775 -1,719,342 -2,354,416 -2,775,601
181
Annex

Average
charged Average
Tariff
month of PV PV user
user
kW [kWh/month] $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
200 60,000 157,924 -128,576 -319,575 -300,203 -579,844 -766,272 -573,535 -848,907 -1,032,487
110 30,000 79,313 -64,288 -159,788 -150,768 -289,922 -383,136 -288,042 -424,453 -516,244
H-MC Northeast 300 120,000 315,847 -103,973 -468,952 -600,405 -1,010,177 -1,366,420 -1,147,070 -1,550,585 -1,901,388
300 30,000 79,313 -64,288 -159,788 -150,768 -289,922 -383,136 -288,042 -424,453 -516,244
110 120,000 315,847 -103,973 -468,952 -600,405 -1,010,177 -1,366,420 -1,147,070 -1,550,585 -1,901,388
300 1,710,000 7,685,130 386,731 -4,478,643 -5,119,165 -12,241,881 -16,991,287 -12,760,661 -19,774,017 -24,451,203
150 855,000 3,842,565 193,391 -2,239,060 -2,559,582 -6,121,736 -8,494,651 -6,380,331 -9,888,292 -12,224,173
Baja
600 3,420,000 15,369,062 773,513 -8,957,287 -10,237,532 -24,485,352 -33,982,574 -25,519,334 -39,550,602 -48,902,406
Calfornia
600 855,000 3,842,565 193,391 -2,239,060 -2,559,582 -6,121,736 -8,494,651 -6,380,331 -9,888,292 -12,224,173
150 3,420,000 15,369,062 773,513 -8,957,287 -10,237,532 -24,485,352 -33,982,574 -25,519,334 -39,550,602 -48,902,406
300 1,710,000 -2,155,019 -9,452,651 -14,318,409 -11,912,671 -19,034,858 -23,784,528 -17,730,928 -24,743,896 -29,421,276
150 855,000 -1,077,510 -4,726,939 -7,158,368 -5,956,336 -9,518,665 -11,890,874 -8,865,464 -12,373,555 -14,708,919
H-S Central 600 3,420,000 -4,309,702 -18,906,530 -28,636,818 -23,823,486 -38,072,189 -47,569,057 -35,459,092 -49,491,005 -58,842,551
600 855,000 -1,077,510 -4,726,939 -7,158,368 -5,956,336 -9,518,665 -11,890,874 -8,865,464 -12,373,555 -14,708,919
150 3,420,000 -4,309,702 -18,906,530 -28,636,818 -23,823,486 -38,072,189 -47,569,057 -35,459,092 -49,491,005 -58,842,551
300 1,710,000 -4,058,212 -11,355,696 -16,221,528 -13,226,610 -20,348,695 -25,098,416 -18,692,232 -25,705,126 -30,382,542
150 855,000 -2,029,106 -5,678,585 -8,109,816 -6,613,305 -10,175,669 -12,547,742 -9,346,116 -12,854,232 -15,189,496
Northeast 600 3,420,000 -8,115,792 -22,712,867 -32,443,056 -26,451,159 -40,700,032 -50,196,833 -37,381,551 -51,413,589 -60,765,085
600 855,000 -2,029,106 -5,678,585 -8,109,816 -6,613,305 -10,175,669 -12,547,742 -9,346,116 -12,854,232 -15,189,496
150 3,420,000 -8,115,792 -22,712,867 -32,443,056 -26,451,159 -40,700,032 -50,196,833 -37,381,551 -51,413,589 -60,765,085
300 3,980,000 9,735,299 -7,250,878 -18,574,592 -17,541,323 -34,121,815 -45,173,572 -33,815,618 -50,143,490 -61,025,941
150 1,990,000 4,867,976 -3,625,237 -9,287,296 -8,771,249 -17,059,956 -22,586,786 -16,908,941 -25,070,346 -30,512,970
Baja
600 7,960,000 19,470,599 -14,501,352 -37,149,185 -35,082,646 -68,241,726 -90,347,144 -67,631,237 -100,284,183 -122,051,881
Calfornia
600 1,990,000 4,867,976 -3,625,237 -9,287,296 -8,771,249 -17,059,956 -22,586,786 -16,908,941 -25,070,346 -30,512,970
150 7,960,000 19,470,599 -14,501,352 -37,149,185 -35,082,646 -68,241,726 -90,347,144 -67,631,237 -100,284,183 -122,051,881
300 3,980,000 -6,817,059 -23,803,791 -35,126,951 -28,968,849 -45,549,723 -56,601,098 -42,176,227 -58,504,379 -69,386,549
150 1,990,000 -3,408,758 -11,901,232 -17,563,476 -14,485,394 -22,773,591 -28,300,549 -21,089,525 -29,250,557 -34,693,275
H-SL Central 600 7,960,000 -13,634,119 -47,606,255 -70,253,903 -57,937,698 -91,096,904 -113,202,195 -84,352,454 -117,005,494 -138,773,099
600 1,990,000 -3,408,758 -11,901,232 -17,563,476 -14,485,394 -22,773,591 -28,300,549 -21,089,525 -29,250,557 -34,693,275
150 7,960,000 -13,634,119 -47,606,255 -70,253,903 -57,937,698 -91,096,904 -113,202,195 -84,352,454 -117,005,494 -138,773,099
300 3,980,000 -11,307,393 -28,294,275 -39,617,284 -32,068,914 -48,649,892 -59,701,163 -44,444,298 -60,772,525 -71,654,620
150 1,990,000 -5,654,075 -14,146,348 -19,808,642 -16,035,531 -24,323,589 -29,850,582 -22,223,637 -30,384,567 -35,827,310
Northeast 600 7,960,000 -22,614,785 -56,586,971 -79,234,569 -64,137,829 -97,297,070 -119,402,326 -88,888,595 -121,541,660 -143,309,240
600 1,990,000 -5,654,075 -14,146,348 -19,808,642 -16,035,531 -24,323,589 -29,850,582 -22,223,637 -30,384,567 -35,827,310
150 7,960,000 -22,614,785 -56,586,971 -79,234,569 -64,137,829 -97,297,070 -119,402,326 -88,888,595 -121,541,660 -143,309,240
182
Annex

Average
charged Average
Tariff
month of PV PV user
user
kW [kWh/month] $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
500 8,100,000 26,124,700 -8,445,322 -31,491,745 -31,343,136 -65,085,669 -87,579,971 -65,634,208 -98,861,515 -121,012,058
250 4,050,000 13,062,350 -4,222,661 -15,745,484 -15,671,568 -32,542,835 -43,788,905 -32,817,104 -49,430,758 -60,504,536
Baja
1,000 16,200,000 52,248,541 -16,890,413 -62,983,490 -62,685,241 -130,169,554 -175,159,942 -131,266,258 -197,720,320 -242,024,115
Calfornia
1,000 4,050,000 13,062,350 -4,222,661 -15,745,484 -15,671,568 -32,542,835 -43,788,905 -32,817,104 -49,430,758 -60,504,536
250 16,200,000 52,248,541 -16,890,413 -62,983,490 -62,685,241 -130,169,554 -175,159,942 -131,266,258 -197,720,320 -242,024,115
500 8,100,000 -25,538,248 -60,108,270 -83,154,268 -67,010,539 -100,753,072 -123,247,081 -91,729,202 -124,956,508 -147,106,836
250 4,050,000 -12,769,124 -30,054,135 -41,576,108 -33,505,270 -50,376,536 -61,622,020 -45,864,601 -62,478,254 -73,551,603
H-T Central 1,000 16,200,000 -51,075,655 -120,214,893 -166,308,536 -134,018,874 -201,503,383 -246,494,162 -183,455,386 -249,909,591 -294,213,672
1,000 4,050,000 -12,769,124 -30,054,135 -41,576,108 -33,505,270 -50,376,536 -61,622,020 -45,864,601 -62,478,254 -73,551,603
250 16,200,000 -51,075,655 -120,214,893 -166,308,536 -134,018,874 -201,503,383 -246,494,162 -183,455,386 -249,909,591 -294,213,672
500 8,100,000 -41,126,110 -75,696,133 -98,742,002 -77,772,189 -111,514,723 -134,008,643 -99,602,642 -132,829,949 -154,980,212
250 4,050,000 -20,563,055 -37,848,066 -49,369,783 -38,886,095 -55,757,361 -67,002,668 -49,801,321 -66,414,974 -77,488,194
Peninsula 1,000 16,200,000 -82,250,868 -151,390,191 -197,484,005 -155,541,821 -223,026,388 -268,017,286 -199,202,008 -265,656,257 -309,960,424
1,000 4,050,000 -20,563,055 -37,848,066 -49,369,783 -38,886,095 -55,757,361 -67,002,668 -49,801,321 -66,414,974 -77,488,194
250 16,200,000 -82,250,868 -151,390,191 -197,484,005 -155,541,821 -223,026,388 -268,017,286 -199,202,008 -265,656,257 -309,960,424
500 39,000,000 39,231,497 -127,215,346 -238,180,074 -210,664,951 -373,127,904 -481,436,654 -359,731,544 -519,713,966 -626,368,997
250 19,500,000 19,615,615 -63,607,311 -119,089,427 -105,331,756 -186,562,890 -240,717,093 -179,864,543 -259,855,503 -313,182,894
Baja
1,000 78,000,000 78,462,995 -254,429,968 -476,358,927 -421,329,903 -746,253,684 -962,870,840 -719,463,088 -1,039,424,973 -1,252,734,785
Calfornia
1,000 19,500,000 19,615,615 -63,607,311 -119,089,427 -105,331,756 -186,562,890 -240,717,093 -179,864,543 -259,855,503 -313,182,894
250 78,000,000 78,462,995 -254,429,968 -476,358,927 -421,329,903 -746,253,684 -962,870,840 -719,463,088 -1,039,424,973 -1,252,734,785
500 39,000,000 -130,923,363 -297,370,400 -408,335,225 -328,137,575 -490,600,661 -598,909,477 -445,676,889 -605,659,409 -712,314,489
250 19,500,000 -65,461,234 -148,684,354 -204,166,566 -164,067,666 -245,298,934 -299,453,204 -222,836,922 -302,827,980 -356,155,420
H-TL Central 1,000 78,000,000 -261,846,726 -594,739,107 -816,668,357 -656,275,149 -981,198,529 -1,197,815,886 -891,353,778 -1,211,315,369 -1,424,625,328
1,000 19,500,000 -65,461,234 -148,684,354 -204,166,566 -164,067,666 -245,298,934 -299,453,204 -222,836,922 -302,827,980 -356,155,420
250 78,000,000 -261,846,726 -594,739,107 -816,668,357 -656,275,149 -981,198,529 -1,197,815,886 -891,353,778 -1,211,315,369 -1,424,625,328
500 39,000,000 -206,033,000 -372,480,123 -483,444,990 -379,992,256 -542,455,402 -650,764,248 -483,614,822 -643,597,385 -750,252,487
250 19,500,000 -103,015,796 -186,239,001 -241,721,256 -189,994,830 -271,226,157 -325,380,457 -241,805,759 -321,796,860 -375,124,321
Peninsula 1,000 78,000,000 -412,066,001 -744,958,125 -966,887,503 -759,984,513 -1,084,907,715 -1,301,525,161 -967,229,644 -1,287,191,105 -1,500,501,129
1,000 19,500,000 -103,015,796 -186,239,001 -241,721,256 -189,994,830 -271,226,157 -325,380,457 -241,805,759 -321,796,860 -375,124,321
250 78,000,000 -412,066,001 -744,958,125 -966,887,503 -759,984,513 -1,084,907,715 -1,301,525,161 -967,229,644 -1,287,191,105 -1,500,501,129
Source: Own display
183
Annex
Annex 34: Scenario 3 - Cost comparison for different discount rates (industry and services sectors)
Average
charged Average
Tariff
month of PV PV user
user
kW [kWh/month] $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
270 12,167 9,476 8,131 7,263 5,406 4,477 4,331 2,972 2,292
2 135 6,084 5,686 5,692 3,632 3,243 3,134 2,166 1,783 1,604
540 24,335 18,953 24,392 14,527 10,811 13,430 8,662 5,944 6,876
63 4,600 119,235 103,634 93,843 62,994 48,812 39,779 29,375 16,051 7,476
26 2,300 56,111 51,817 46,922 29,644 24,406 19,890 13,824 8,025 3,738
3 100 9,200 238,471 207,267 191,952 125,987 97,624 81,367 58,751 32,102 15,292
100 2,300 56,111 51,817 46,922 29,644 24,406 19,890 13,824 8,025 3,738
26 9,200 238,471 207,267 191,952 125,987 97,624 81,367 58,751 32,102 15,292
50 5,300 54,958 40,187 30,540 16,344 1,599 -8,471 -6,720 -21,440 -31,757
10 2,650 28,925 20,967 15,270 8,602 834 -4,236 -3,537 -11,186 -15,879
Baja
99 10,600 112,809 80,374 61,080 33,548 3,198 -16,943 -13,795 -42,881 -63,514
Calfornia
99 2,650 28,925 20,967 15,270 8,602 834 -4,236 -3,537 -11,186 -15,879
10 10,600 112,809 80,374 61,080 33,548 3,198 -16,943 -13,795 -42,881 -63,514
50 5,300 71,919 57,297 47,947 28,054 13,412 3,547 1,847 -12,798 -22,965
10 2,650 37,852 29,894 23,974 14,765 6,997 1,773 972 -6,677 -11,482
O-M Central 99 10,600 147,624 114,593 95,895 57,584 26,823 7,093 3,790 -25,596 -45,929
99 2,650 37,852 29,894 23,974 14,765 6,997 1,773 972 -6,677 -11,482
10 10,600 147,624 114,593 95,895 57,584 26,823 7,093 3,790 -25,596 -45,929
50 5,300 61,762 47,051 37,523 21,042 6,338 -3,650 -3,284 -17,973 -28,230
10 2,650 32,506 24,548 18,762 11,075 3,307 -1,825 -1,728 -9,377 -14,115
Northeast 99 10,600 126,775 94,101 75,046 43,191 12,676 -7,300 -6,740 -35,947 -56,460
99 2,650 32,506 24,548 18,762 11,075 3,307 -1,825 -1,728 -9,377 -14,115
10 10,600 126,775 94,101 75,046 43,191 12,676 -7,300 -6,740 -35,947 -56,460
200 77,000 423,682 200,529 51,014 -26,923 -245,780 -391,063 -295,937 -512,091 -654,756
110 38,500 212,595 100,264 25,575 -13,509 -122,890 -196,053 -148,495 -256,046 -328,251
Baja
300 144,000 886,339 486,229 219,641 40,625 -349,647 -609,723 -464,327 -848,480 -1,104,505
Calfornia
300 38,500 212,595 100,264 25,575 -13,509 -122,890 -196,053 -148,495 -256,046 -328,251
110 144,000 886,339 486,229 219,641 40,625 -349,647 -609,723 -464,327 -848,480 -1,104,505
200 77,000 522,224 299,304 149,643 41,109 -177,587 -322,971 -246,163 -462,200 -604,938
110 38,500 262,041 149,652 75,021 20,628 -88,793 -161,916 -123,519 -231,100 -303,276
H-M Central 300 144,000 1,070,799 670,630 404,013 167,974 -222,339 -482,435 -371,157 -755,339 -1,011,379
300 38,500 262,041 149,652 75,021 20,628 -88,793 -161,916 -123,519 -231,100 -303,276
110 144,000 1,070,799 670,630 404,013 167,974 -222,339 -482,435 -371,157 -755,339 -1,011,379
200 77,000 403,798 180,597 31,111 -40,651 -259,541 -404,803 -305,980 -522,159 -664,809
110 38,500 202,618 90,298 15,597 -20,398 -129,770 -202,941 -153,535 -261,079 -333,291
Northeast 300 144,000 849,118 449,019 182,437 14,928 -375,336 -635,408 -483,128 -867,275 -1,123,297
300 38,500 202,618 90,298 15,597 -20,398 -129,770 -202,941 -153,535 -261,079 -333,291
110 144,000 849,118 449,019 182,437 14,928 -375,336 -635,408 -483,128 -867,275 -1,123,297
184
Annex

Average
charged Average
Tariff
month of PV PV user
user
kW [kWh/month] $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
200 60,000 718,985 545,112 428,506 247,428 77,372 -36,097 -34,266 -201,937 -313,462
110 30,000 361,134 273,592 214,253 124,279 38,833 -18,048 -17,211 -101,352 -156,731
H-MC Northeast 300 120,000 1,437,969 1,183,478 960,549 494,857 245,766 28,865 -68,532 -314,242 -527,409
300 30,000 361,134 273,592 214,253 124,279 38,833 -18,048 -17,211 -101,352 -156,731
110 120,000 1,437,969 1,183,478 960,549 494,857 245,766 28,865 -68,532 -314,242 -527,409
300 1,710,000 21,978,284 17,537,403 14,577,792 8,831,564 4,497,656 1,608,719 976,867 -3,290,452 -6,135,380
150 855,000 10,987,383 8,768,702 7,288,021 4,415,075 2,248,828 804,263 488,356 -1,645,226 -3,067,321
Baja
600 3,420,000 43,953,051 35,074,807 29,155,585 17,661,713 8,995,311 3,217,439 1,953,579 -6,580,905 -12,270,759
Calfornia
600 855,000 10,987,383 8,768,702 7,288,021 4,415,075 2,248,828 804,263 488,356 -1,645,226 -3,067,321
150 3,420,000 43,953,051 35,074,807 29,155,585 17,661,713 8,995,311 3,217,439 1,953,579 -6,580,905 -12,270,759
300 1,710,000 12,137,904 7,697,549 4,737,806 2,037,898 -2,295,648 -5,184,674 -3,993,516 -8,260,570 -11,105,564
150 855,000 6,067,981 3,848,774 2,368,619 1,018,786 -1,147,824 -2,592,026 -1,996,438 -4,130,285 -5,552,115
H-S Central 600 3,420,000 24,273,866 15,395,097 9,475,613 4,075,469 -4,591,295 -10,369,349 -7,986,392 -16,521,141 -22,211,128
600 855,000 6,067,981 3,848,774 2,368,619 1,018,786 -1,147,824 -2,592,026 -1,996,438 -4,130,285 -5,552,115
150 3,420,000 24,273,866 15,395,097 9,475,613 4,075,469 -4,591,295 -10,369,349 -7,986,392 -16,521,141 -22,211,128
300 1,710,000 10,234,666 5,794,412 2,834,644 723,928 -3,609,547 -6,498,592 -4,954,843 -9,221,846 -12,066,852
150 855,000 5,116,514 2,897,206 1,417,152 361,906 -1,804,774 -3,248,906 -2,477,025 -4,610,923 -6,032,702
Northeast 600 3,420,000 20,467,695 11,588,824 5,669,289 1,447,740 -7,219,095 -12,997,183 -9,908,892 -18,443,692 -24,133,704
600 855,000 5,116,514 2,897,206 1,417,152 361,906 -1,804,774 -3,248,906 -2,477,025 -4,610,923 -6,032,702
150 3,420,000 20,467,695 11,588,824 5,669,289 1,447,740 -7,219,095 -12,997,183 -9,908,892 -18,443,692 -24,133,704
300 3,980,000 43,000,369 32,667,405 25,777,696 14,926,898 4,840,960 -1,883,058 -1,843,530 -11,775,652 -18,396,524
150 1,990,000 21,498,706 16,332,766 12,889,513 7,462,936 2,420,341 -941,578 -921,702 -5,887,488 -9,198,737
Baja
600 7,960,000 86,000,738 65,332,938 51,555,391 29,853,795 9,681,643 -3,766,116 -3,687,061 -23,550,628 -36,793,049
Calfornia
600 1,990,000 21,498,706 16,332,766 12,889,513 7,462,936 2,420,341 -941,578 -921,702 -5,887,488 -9,198,737
150 7,960,000 86,000,738 65,332,938 51,555,391 29,853,795 9,681,643 -3,766,116 -3,687,061 -23,550,628 -36,793,049
300 3,980,000 26,447,646 16,114,492 9,225,257 3,499,121 -6,586,948 -13,310,639 -10,204,323 -20,136,540 -26,757,173
150 1,990,000 13,222,913 8,056,784 4,612,866 1,749,440 -3,293,285 -6,655,663 -5,101,811 -10,067,693 -13,379,277
H-SL Central 600 7,960,000 52,895,291 32,228,061 18,450,514 6,998,241 -13,173,518 -26,621,277 -20,408,646 -40,271,926 -53,514,347
600 1,990,000 13,222,913 8,056,784 4,612,866 1,749,440 -3,293,285 -6,655,663 -5,101,811 -10,067,693 -13,379,277
150 7,960,000 52,895,291 32,228,061 18,450,514 6,998,241 -13,173,518 -26,621,277 -20,408,646 -40,271,926 -53,514,347
300 3,980,000 21,957,214 11,624,009 4,734,902 398,987 -9,687,117 -16,410,719 -12,472,443 -22,404,687 -29,025,255
150 1,990,000 10,977,852 5,811,671 2,367,573 199,480 -4,843,281 -8,205,783 -6,235,793 -11,201,701 -14,513,376
Northeast 600 7,960,000 43,914,427 23,247,351 9,469,804 797,974 -19,373,679 -32,821,438 -24,944,887 -44,808,089 -58,050,510
600 1,990,000 10,977,852 5,811,671 2,367,573 199,480 -4,843,281 -8,205,783 -6,235,793 -11,201,701 -14,513,376
150 7,960,000 43,914,427 23,247,351 9,469,804 797,974 -19,373,679 -32,821,438 -24,944,887 -44,808,089 -58,050,510
185
Annex

Average
charged Average
Tariff
month of PV PV user
user
kW [kWh/month] $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
500 8,100,000 93,823,271 72,793,821 58,773,504 34,735,601 14,209,204 524,806 -564,060 -20,777,228 -34,252,478
250 4,050,000 46,913,221 36,395,885 29,386,752 17,368,387 7,104,402 262,403 -282,040 -10,388,321 -17,126,239
Baja
1,000 16,200,000 187,646,542 145,587,642 117,547,008 69,471,201 28,418,408 1,049,613 -1,128,120 -41,554,455 -68,504,955
Calfornia
1,000 4,050,000 46,913,221 36,395,885 29,386,752 17,368,387 7,104,402 262,403 -282,040 -10,388,321 -17,126,239
250 16,200,000 187,646,542 145,587,642 117,547,008 69,471,201 28,418,408 1,049,613 -1,128,120 -41,554,455 -68,504,955
500 8,100,000 42,160,905 21,131,164 7,111,138 -931,401 -21,457,998 -35,142,195 -26,658,759 -46,872,074 -60,347,177
250 4,050,000 21,081,165 10,565,284 3,555,569 -465,716 -10,728,697 -17,571,098 -13,329,830 -23,435,377 -30,173,588
H-T Central 1,000 16,200,000 84,321,810 42,262,327 14,222,276 -1,862,802 -42,915,997 -70,284,390 -53,317,518 -93,744,147 -120,694,353
1,000 4,050,000 21,081,165 10,565,284 3,555,569 -465,716 -10,728,697 -17,571,098 -13,329,830 -23,435,377 -30,173,588
250 16,200,000 84,321,810 42,262,327 14,222,276 -1,862,802 -42,915,997 -70,284,390 -53,317,518 -93,744,147 -120,694,353
500 8,100,000 26,573,218 5,543,389 -8,476,549 -11,692,930 -32,219,588 -45,903,724 -34,532,111 -54,745,470 -68,220,529
250 4,050,000 13,287,058 2,771,616 -4,238,274 -5,846,663 -16,109,340 -22,951,862 -17,266,639 -27,371,964 -34,110,264
Peninsula 1,000 16,200,000 53,146,436 11,086,778 -16,953,098 -23,385,860 -64,439,176 -91,807,448 -69,064,223 -109,490,940 -136,441,057
1,000 4,050,000 13,287,058 2,771,616 -4,238,274 -5,846,663 -16,109,340 -22,951,862 -17,266,639 -27,371,964 -34,110,264
250 16,200,000 53,146,436 11,086,778 -16,953,098 -23,385,860 -64,439,176 -91,807,448 -69,064,223 -109,490,940 -136,441,057
500 39,000,000 365,190,059 263,934,553 196,430,707 107,490,963 8,659,462 -57,227,988 -46,433,850 -143,756,080 -208,637,115
250 19,500,000 182,595,030 131,966,504 98,215,353 53,745,482 4,329,706 -28,613,994 -23,216,925 -71,877,620 -104,318,557
Baja
1,000 78,000,000 730,380,119 527,869,105 392,862,447 214,981,927 17,318,924 -114,456,278 -92,867,700 -287,512,160 -417,275,328
Calfornia
1,000 19,500,000 182,595,030 131,966,504 98,215,353 53,745,482 4,329,706 -28,613,994 -23,216,925 -71,877,620 -104,318,557
250 78,000,000 730,380,119 527,869,105 392,862,447 214,981,927 17,318,924 -114,456,278 -92,867,700 -287,512,160 -417,275,328
500 39,000,000 195,034,992 93,779,684 26,276,236 -9,981,803 -108,813,167 -174,700,342 -132,379,299 -229,701,429 -294,582,263
250 19,500,000 97,517,496 46,889,568 13,138,118 -4,990,901 -54,406,265 -87,350,171 -66,189,650 -114,850,043 -147,291,131
H-TL Central 1,000 78,000,000 390,069,984 187,559,368 52,552,611 -19,963,606 -217,626,334 -349,401,604 -264,758,599 -459,402,858 -589,166,077
1,000 19,500,000 97,517,496 46,889,568 13,138,118 -4,990,901 -54,406,265 -87,350,171 -66,189,650 -114,850,043 -147,291,131
250 78,000,000 390,069,984 187,559,368 52,552,611 -19,963,606 -217,626,334 -349,401,604 -264,758,599 -459,402,858 -589,166,077
500 39,000,000 119,925,263 18,670,043 -48,833,229 -61,836,548 -160,667,851 -226,554,905 -170,317,279 -267,639,364 -332,520,109
250 19,500,000 59,962,632 9,334,967 -24,416,614 -30,918,274 -80,333,456 -113,277,452 -85,158,639 -133,818,899 -166,260,054
Peninsula 1,000 78,000,000 239,850,527 37,340,087 -97,666,714 -123,673,095 -321,335,702 -453,111,002 -340,634,557 -535,278,728 -665,041,968
1,000 19,500,000 59,962,632 9,334,967 -24,416,614 -30,918,274 -80,333,456 -113,277,452 -85,158,639 -133,818,899 -166,260,054
250 78,000,000 239,850,527 37,340,087 -97,666,714 -123,673,095 -321,335,702 -453,111,002 -340,634,557 -535,278,728 -665,041,968
Source: Own display
186
Bibliography
Bibliography
 Artículo 40 XII, Ley de Impuestos sobre la renta., Available at:

http://www.sat.gob.mx/nuevo.html
 http://www.bine.info/pdf/publikation/bi0303internetx.pdf, Accessed September 28, 2007
 http://www.cfe.gob.mx/es/InformacionAlCliente/conocetutarifa/ , Accessed August 3,
2007
 http://www.conae.gob.mx/wb/CONAE/CONA_1433_irradiacion_en_la_re , Accessed
August 20, 2007
 http://www.enalmex.com/paginas/como.htm , Accessed May 7, 2008
 http://www.iea-pvps-task2.org/database/index.htm , Accessed October 6, 2007
 IIE Boletín – Resultados tecnologicos del sector electrico aplicables al petrolero.1998.
 http://genc.iie.org.mx/genc/fotovoltaico/ , Accessed September 24, 2007
 http://www.kyocera.de/ , Accessed September 24, 2007
 http://www.level.org.nz/energy/renewable-electricity-generation/photovoltaic-systems/ ,
Accessed September 19, 2007
 http://www.pge.com/suppliers_purchasing/new_generator/solar_wind_generators/expand
ed_e_net/netenergy_metering/index.htm , Accessed: October 20, 2007
 Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme – Annual Report 2006. International Energy
Agency (IEA) – Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme. Page 78.
 Prospectiva del Sector Eléctrico 2006 – 2015. Secretaría de Energía. 2006.
 Resolucion No. RES/176/2007. Secretaría de Energía.
 Seminario Nacional Sobre el Uso Racional de la Energia – Memoria Técnica, 1998.
 http://www.sener.gob.mx/webSener/res/PE_y_DT/ee/ , Accessed October 13, 2007
 http://www.solarserver.de/lexikon/performance_ratio-e.html , Accessed September 28,
2007
 Trends in Photovoltaic Applications – Survey report of selected IEA countries between
1992 and 2006. International Energy Agency (IEA) – Photovoltaic Power Systems
Programme. August 2007. Page 1.
 http://www.uni-solar.com/ , Accessed September 24, 2007
 Prof. Dr. Voß, A. – Energiesysteme I - Grundlagen der Energiewirtschaft und
Energieversorgung, Volume 1. Institute for Energy Economics and Rational Use of
Energy (IER).
 Prof. Dr. Voß, A. – Energiesysteme II – Rationelle Energieanwendung und
Energieanlagen. Institute for Energy Economics and Rational Use of Energy (IER). Page
23-26.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadalajara%2C_Jalisco , Accessed September 6, 2007
187
Bibliography
 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexiko , Accessed September 6, 2007

 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaik , Accessed August 15, 2007
 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltenergieverbrauch , Accessed December 20, 2007
188

Nichos de Mercado Energia Solar Mexico

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Nichos de Mercado Energia Solar Mexico

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Nichos de mercado para sistemas

fotovoltaicos en conexión a la red

Edición y Supervisión: André Eckermann, Sebastian Hack, Valentina Barzalobre

© Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía (Conuee)

© Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

consideraron dos opciones de sistemas fotovoltaicos. La primera opción es un sistema

Consideraciones metodológicas y escenarios

Tabla 1: Parámetros clave y suposiciones

Sector residencial Sectores industrial y de servicios

Costos anuales para O&M como porcentaje

Tasa anual de incremento de precios de las

Fuente: Elaboración propia

Sector residencial Sectores industrial y de servicios

Temperatura promedio Tarifa Tarifa

< 25°C 1 < 25 kW 2

≥ 33°C 1F subtransmisión, periodo de utilización largo H-SL

transmisión, periodo de utilización largo H-TL

Fuente: Elaboración propia

Adicionalmente al análisis, desde la perspectiva del inversionista (perspectiva micro) y para

Principales resultados para el sector residencial (perspectiva micro)

Figura 1: Derivación de los nichos indicados

Sistema FV para suministro eléctrico parcial

Precio promedio = (Tarifa * Porcentaje) + (Costos de generación FV * Porcentaje)

Fuente: Elaboración propia

Tabla 3: Nichos de mercado por ciudad

Fuente: Elaboración propia

Escenario 2 “Perspectiva conservadora” (82,400 $/kW p)

 Los nichos de mercado no están limitados a consumidores DAC: En el rango de

Tabla 4: Tamaño de los nichos en el sector residencial (perspectiva micro)

Fuente: Elaboración propia

Principales resultados para el sector residencial (perspectiva macro)

encontrados en el análisis del sector residencial desde la perspectiva micro, el nicho en

Tabla 5: Tamaño total de los nichos de mercado de la perspectiva macro

Perspectiva Macro "Sin cambio de tarifa"

Fuente: Elaboración propia

Principales resultados para los sectores industrial y de servicios

Escenario 1 “Precios actuales”

Escenario 2 “Perspectiva conservadora”

Escenario 3 “Perspectiva optimista”

Escenario 1 Escenario 2 Escenario 3

- Presentación de Resultados Clave -

Nichos de mercado para

La Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía (Conuee)

2 Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía

La Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía (CONUEE)

4 Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía

Cooperación con México en el sector energía

5 Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía

 Identificar nichos de mercado, económicamente viables, de

 Determinar el mercado potencial para los nichos identificados

 Identificar el impacto de subsidios en los nichos de mercado y en

 Ofrecer herramientas amigables de estimación de rentabilidad para

7 Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía

Especificaciones de sistemas analizados

8 Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía

Sistema FV para suministro eléctrico parcial

Precio promedio = (Tarifa * Porcentaje) + (Costos de generación FV * Porcentaje)

9 Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía

Sectores industrial y servicios

Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía

* precios en $ Pesos M.N.

11 Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía

VPN de costos de generación del sistema FV [$/kWh]