February 2005 • NREL/CP-520-37358

Performance Parameters for

Grid-Connected PV Systems

B. Marion, J. Adelstein, and K. Boyle

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

H. Hayden, B. Hammond, T. Fletcher, B. Canada,

and D. Narang
Arizona Public Service Co.

D. Shugar, H. Wenger, A. Kimber, and L. Mitchell

PowerLight Corporation

G. Rich and T. Townsend

First Solar

Prepared for the 31st IEEE Photovoltaics Specialists

Conference and Exhibition
. Lake Buena Vista, Florida
January 3-7, 2005

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393
303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov
Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle
Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337
 NOTICE
The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Midwest Research Institute (MRI), a
contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-99GO10337. Accordingly, the US
Government and MRI retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published
form of this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes.
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents
that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial
product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any
agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect
those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
phone: 865.576.8401
fax: 865.576.5728
email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
phone: 800.553.6847
fax: 703.605.6900
email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov
online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
 Performance Parameters for Grid-Connected PV Systems

B. Marion,1 J. Adelstein,1 K. Boyle,1 H. Hayden,2 B. Hammond,2 T. Fletcher,2 B. Canada,2 D. Narang,2

D. Shugar,3 H. Wenger,3 A. Kimber,3 L. Mitchell,3 G. Rich,4 and T. Townsend4
1
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401
2
Arizona Public Service Co., 1500 E. University Dr., Tempe, AZ 85281
3
PowerLight Corporation, 2954 San Pablo Ave., Berkeley, CA 94702
4
First Solar, 4050 E. Cotton Center Blvd. #6-68, Phoenix. AZ 85040

ABSTRACT credibility for the PV industry and positioning it for further

growth.
The use of appropriate performance parameters
facilitates the comparison of grid-connected photovoltaic Parameters describing energy quantities for the PV
(PV) systems that may differ with respect to design, system and its components have been established by the
technology, or geographic location. Four performance International Energy Agency (IEA) Photovoltaic Power
parameters that define the overall system performance Systems Program and are described in the IEC standard
with respect to the energy production, solar resource, and 61724 [1]. (IEA task members have used these
overall effect of system losses are the following: final PV performance parameters to develop a database of
system yield, reference yield, performance ratio, and operational and reliability performance [2]. The database
PVUSA rating. These performance parameters are contains information for several hundred PV systems and
discussed for their suitability in providing desired may be viewed at www.task2.org.)
information for PV system design and performance
evaluation and are demonstrated for a variety of Three of the IEC standard 61724 performance
technologies, designs, and geographic locations. Also parameters may be used to define the overall system
discussed are methodologies for determining system a.c. performance with respect to the energy production, solar
power ratings in the design phase using multipliers resource, and overall effect of system losses. These
developed from measured performance parameters. parameters are the final PV system yield, reference yield,
and performance ratio.
INTRODUCTION
The final PV system yield Yf is the net energy output
Accurate and consistent evaluations of photovoltaic E divided by the nameplate d.c. power P0 of the installed
(PV) system performance are critical for the continuing PV array. It represents the number of hours that the PV
development of the PV industry. For component array would need to operate at its rated power to provide
manufacturers, performance evaluations are benchmarks the same energy. The units are hours or kWh/kW, with the
of quality for existing products. For research and latter preferred by the authors because it describes the
development teams, they are a key metric for helping to quantities used to derive the parameter. The Yf normalizes
identify future needs. For systems integrators and end the energy produced with respect to the system size;
customers, they are vital tools for evaluating products and consequently, it is a convenient way to compare the
product quality to guide future decision-making. energy produced by PV systems of differing size:

As the industry has grown, a clear need has arisen for E

greater use of and education about appropriate industry- Yf = (kWh/kW) or (hours) (1)
P0
standard performance parameters for PV systems. These
performance parameters allow the detection of operational
problems; facilitate the comparison of systems that may The reference yield Yr is the total in-plane irradiance
differ with respect to design, technology, or geographic H divided by the PV’s reference irradiance G. It represents
location; and validate models for system performance an equivalent number of hours at the reference irradiance.
estimation during the design phase. Industry-wide use of If G equals 1 kW/m2, then Yr is the number of peak sun-
2
standard performance parameters and system ratings will hours or the solar radiation in units of kWh/m . The Yr
assist investors in evaluating different proposals and defines the solar radiation resource for the PV system. It is
technologies, giving them greater confidence in their own a function of the location, orientation of the PV array, and
ability to procure and maintain reliable, high-quality month-to-month and year-to-year weather variability:
systems. Standard methods of evaluation and rating will
also help to set appropriate expectations for performance H
Yr = (hours) (2)
with educated customers, ultimately leading to increased G

1
 The performance ratio PR is the Yf divided by the Yr. respect to an a.c. power rating, two systems might report
By normalizing with respect to irradiance, it quantifies the the same Yf, but have significantly different inverter
overall effect of losses on the rated output due to: inverter efficiencies, or other loss mechanisms. Similarly, if
inefficiency, and wiring, mismatch, and other losses when performance was with respect to PTC, two systems might
converting from d.c. to a.c. power; PV module report the same Yf, but have significantly different PV
temperature; incomplete use of irradiance by reflection module temperature-related losses because of how the
from the module front surface; soiling or snow; system PV modules are mounted or integrated into the building.
down-time; and component failures:
Although a nameplate d.c. power rating is used in Yf
Y to report the normalized energy produced by an existing
PR = f (dimensionless) (3) system, an a.c. power rating is essential when attempting
Yr
to predict the energy a PV system will produce using
models such as PVWATTS [5], PVDesignPro [6], or
PR values are typically reported on a monthly or PVGRID [7]. Accurate energy predictions are crucial to the
yearly basis. Values calculated for smaller intervals, such continued development of the photovoltaic industry
as weekly or daily, may be useful for identifying because they set the investor’s expectations for system
occurrences of component failures. Because of losses due performance and the associated economic return. The
to PV module temperature, PR values are greater in the remainder of this section discusses a.c. power ratings and
winter than in the summer and normally fall within the considerations in their determination.
range of 0.6 to 0.8. If PV module soiling is seasonal, it
may also impact differences in PR from summer to winter. PV systems may be assigned a.c. power ratings by
Decreasing yearly values may indicate a permanent loss accounting for: (1) losses in converting from d.c. to a.c.
in performance. power, and (2) operating cell temperatures that are usually
greater than 25°C. In the first case, the nameplate d.c.
The PVUSA rating method [3] uses a regression power rating is multiplied by empirically determined derate
model and system performance and meteorological data factors to calculate an a.c. power rating at STC. In the
to calculate power at PVUSA Test Conditions (PTC), second case, an additional derate can be applied for
where PTC are defined as 1000 W/m2 plane-of-array temperature other than STC. Finally, the PVUSA rating
°
irradiance, 20 C ambient temperature, and 1 m/s wind method may be used to assign an a.c. rating to an existing
speed. PTC differs from standard test conditions (STC) in system with historical data.
that its test conditions of ambient temperature and wind
speed will result in a cell temperature of about 50°C, To evaluate the accuracy of our empirical derate
instead of the 25°C for STC. This is for a rack-mounted PV factors, PVUSA ratings were determined for 24
module with relatively good cooling on both sides of the PowerLight PV systems (twenty single-crystalline silicon,
module. For PV modules mounted close to the roof or two multicrystalline silicon, and two amorphous silicon)
integrated into the building with the airflow restricted, PTC located throughout the United States. These ratings were
will yield greater cell temperatures. Nordmann and then compared to the a.c. ratings for the same systems
Clavadetscher [4] report that PV module temperatures rise calculated by using the derate method and the derate
above ambient for fielded system ranging from 20°C to factors from Table 1. All derate factors in Table 1 were
2
52°C at 1000 W/m , with the largest temperature rise for estimated from measured losses and component
an integrated façade. The difference between the specifications. The typical overall derate factor at nominal
nameplate d.c. power rating and the system PVUSA rating operating cell temperature (NOCT) is 0.731, representing
is an indication of the total system losses associated with a loss of 26.9% from the nameplate d.c. rating.
converting d.c. module energy to a.c. energy. As with
decreasing PR values, decreasing PVUSA ratings over
time may indicate a permanent loss in performance. Table 1. Derate Factors for A.C. Power Rating
Item Typical Range
D.C. AND A.C. RATINGS PV module nameplate d.c. rating 1.00 0.85 – 1.05
Initial light-induced degradation 0.98 0.90 – 0.99
The Yf is calculated by dividing the energy yield d.c. cabling 0.98 0.97 – 0.99
recorded with a utility kWh meter by the nameplate d.c. Diodes and connections 0.995 0.99 – 0.997
power rating. The nameplate d.c. power rating is Mismatch 0.98 0.97 – 0.985
determined by summing the module powers listed on the Power-conditioning unit (inverter) 0.96 0.93 – 0.96
Transformers 0.97 0.96 – 0.98
nameplates on the backsides of the individual PV modules a.c. wiring 0.99 0.98 – 0.993
in the PV array. The PV module power ratings are for STC Soiling 0.95 0.75 – 0.98
of 1000 W/m2 solar irradiance and 25°C cell temperature. Shading 1.00 0.0 – 1.00
Besides being easily determined, the nameplate d.c. Sun-tracking 1.00 0.98 – 1.00
power rating’s use in the equation for Yf offers the Availability of system 0.98 0.0 – 0.995
advantage, as compared to the use of an a.c. power rating Overall at STC 0.804 0.62* – 0.92
or conditions other than STC, of differentiating between Temperature (at NOCT = 45°C) 0.91
systems with different d.c. to a.c. conversion efficiencies Overall at NOCT 0.731
or different mounting-related PV module temperature *Does not include soiling, shading, tracking, or availability losses
environments. For example, if performance was with

2
 For the initial comparison, all “typical” derate factors Consequently, for the second comparison, results
from Table 1 were used, except for the temperature derate were significantly improved by using a derate factor to
factors that were determined using the manufacturers’ account for the accuracy of the manufacturer’s nameplate
power correction factors for temperature and NOCTs of d.c. ratings, as detailed in the first row of Table 1.
45°C. The results of the comparison using this derate Compared to the PVUSA ratings, the a.c ratings
method are shown in Fig. 1. The derate method a.c. calculated using a derate method including a factor for
ratings were as much as 19% greater than the PVUSA manufacturer’s nameplate rating were within ±5%, with a
rating, and the standard deviation of the differences was standard deviation of the differences of 2%. Figure 2
7%. In Fig. 1, the measured loss is the difference between illustrates these results. Although not evaluated, still better
the nameplate d.c. rating and the PVUSA rating. The agreement might have been achieved by using system-
design loss is the difference between the nameplate d.c. specific derate and NOCT values instead of typical values.
rating and the a.c. rating calculated using the derate
method. For an accurate design, the measured loss and INFLUENCE OF WEATHER
design loss will be very close. The measured and design
losses are expressed as percentages for ease of Variations in solar radiation and ambient temperature
comparison. from month-to-month and year-to-year influence the
40.0%
performance parameters. Therefore, it is important to
Average Measured Loss (% difference between the Array DC Rating and the PVUSA rating) identify which performance parameters are suitable for
35.0% Design Loss (% difference between the Array DC Rating and the Design AC Rating from Derate Factors)
which system evaluations based on their weather-
30.0%
dependence. The Yf is influenced the most because of its
dependency on solar radiation. The PR is influenced less
25.0% because values are normalized with respect to solar
radiation, but values are influenced by seasonal variations
System Loss

20.0%
in temperature. The PVUSA a.c power ratings at PTC are
15.0%
influenced the least because the method performs the
regression using solar radiation, ambient temperature, and
10.0%
wind speed values. Small variations in PVUSA method
5.0%
a.c power ratings can be attributed to the range of values
over which the regression is performed, nonlinearities in
0.0%
Overall Manufacturer 1 - Manufacturer 2 - Manufacturer 3 - Manufacturer 4 - Manufacturer 5 - Manufacturer 5 -
PV module and inverter performance, and variations in
Single Crystalline Single Crystalline Single Crystalline Single Crystalline Multi- Crystalline Amorphous
solar spectrum.
Fig. 1. Design and measured losses using typical derate factors,
except for the temperature derate factor, which was manufacturer To illustrate the extent to which the performance
specific. parameters might be influenced by weather, PV system
performance was modeled using PVFORM [9] for a 30-
Current-voltage (I-V) curve testing of PV modules year period. The hourly solar radiation and meteorological
used in these 24 systems revealed that the accuracy of data input to PVFORM was for the Boulder, CO, station in
the nameplate ratings varied by manufacturer, and for the National Solar Radiation Data Base [10]. PV system
certain manufacturers the accuracy varied by product. specifications were the same as the PV system located on
Some PV modules produced as much as 4% more than the roof of the Solar Energy Research Facility (SERF) at
specified, whereas others were as much as 12% less than the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL):
specified [8]. single-crystalline silicon PV modules, nameplate d.c.
power rating of 7420 W, PV array tilt angle of 45°, and PV
45.0%
array azimuth angle of 22° east of south. Using modeled,
40.0%
Average Measured Loss (% difference between the Array DC Rating and the PVUSA rating)

Design Loss (% difference between the Array DC Rating and the Design AC Rating from Derate Factors)
instead of measured, data permitted the influence of
weather to be evaluated over a longer period of time and
35.0%
eliminated the need to carefully screen erroneous data or
30.0%
data collected when the system was inoperative, or to
account for any performance degradation that occurred.
System Loss

25.0%

20.0% Using the modeled data for the 30-year period,

monthly and yearly performance parameters and PVUSA
15.0%
a.c power ratings at PTC were calculated. The results are
10.0% shown in Fig. 3. If weather had no influence, the values
would all reside on a horizontal line, but that is clearly not
5.0%
the case. As expected, Yf shows the greatest variability
0.0%
Overall Manufacturer 1 - Manufacturer 2 - Manufacturer 3 - Manufacturer 4 - Manufacturer 5 - Manufacturer 5 -
and the PVUSA a.c power rating at PTC shows the least.
Single Crystalline Single Crystalline Single Crystalline Single Crystalline Multi- Crystalline Amorphous
Although not shown, the variability of Yr is similar to Yf
Fig. 2. Design and measured losses using typical derate factors, because of Yf’s dependence on solar irradiance. PR
except for the temperature derate factor and the PV module values exhibit the influence of temperature, with smaller
nameplate d.c. rating derate factor, which were manufacturer values in summer than winter. For yearly values, 95%
specific. confidence intervals, determined as twice the standard

3
deviations, are shown. The confidence interval of ±8.4% Airport MTB1 system, the inverter operated poorly until
for Yf means that 95% of the yearly values should be August, when all its performance issues had been
within 8.4% of the average yearly value. As indicated by resolved. The Gilbert Nature Center system experienced
the scatter of data, monthly values are more variable, frequent inverter faults, and in August a conductor failed,
resulting in greater confidence intervals than for the yearly rendering the system inoperable or operating at reduced
values. Although PR varies from summer to winter, the power for most of the month.
yearly values are consistent with a confidence interval of
±1.2%, which is only slightly greater than the confidence Table 2. Arizona Public Service PV Systems and Their Yf for
interval of ±0.7% for yearly values of PVUSA a.c power September 2003 Through August 2004.
ratings at PTC. (Because the PVUSA ratings are System Name Location Size Yf
(kWdc) (kWh/kW)
determined using a month of data, the yearly value was
Single-Axis Tracking, North-South Horizontal Axis
determined as the average of the 12 monthly values.) Embry Riddle Prescott 228.50 1906
Consequently, both PVUSA a.c power ratings at PTC and Gilbert Nature Ctr. Tempe/Mesa 144.00 1682
yearly PR values should be able to detect degradation of Ocotillo 1 Tempe 94.47 1806
system performance over time. Airport MTA2 Prescott 121.00 2118
Airport MTA7 Prescott 151.20 1882
5 Airport MTB1 Prescott 151.20 1406
Airport MTB2 Prescott 151.20 1807
Yf (kWh/kW/day)

Airport MTB3 Prescott 151.20 1861

4 Airport MTB5 Prescott 117.60 1869
Water Tanks-East Scottsdale 153.60 1986
3 Water Tanks-West Scottsdale 144.00 2020
Yucca Pwr. Plant Yuma 121.00 2147
95% Confidence Interval for Yearly Values = Average 8.4%
Non-Tracking, Horizontal
0.9 Star Parking Tempe 5.04 1345
Non-Tracking, South-Facing with Tilt Equal to Latitude
0.8 Challenger Peoria 2.28 1593
0.7 Desert Lake Pleasant 2.28 1461
PR

0.6
0.5 The Yf normalizes performance with respect to
95% Confidence Interval for Yearly Values = Average 1.2%
6000 system size; consequently, it is useful for comparing
PVUSA Rating (W ac)

systems of different size to quantify benefits of design,

components, or locations. But unlike the PR, the Yf values
5000 do not correct for the variability of solar radiation, and
therefore, are not as useful for identifying operational
4000 problems. The exception is side-by-side operation of
systems of identical design, such as the Arizona Public
95% Confidence Interval for Yearly Values = Average 0.7%
3000
Service single-axis trackers at the Prescott airport. For this
situation, we can assume that all systems have essentially
J F M A M J J A S O N D Yr the same solar resource (Yr), and that any operational
problem may be detected by comparing a system’s Yf
Fig. 3. Monthly and yearly Yf, PR, and PVUSA a.c power rating at
PTC from PV performance data modeled over a 30-year period 400 4000
show the influence of weather variability. Embry Riddle Airport MTB2
Gilbert Nature Ctr Airport MTB3
Ocotillo 1 " Airport MTB5
EXAMPLE RESULTS FOR Yf Airport MTA2 ' Water-Tanks East
Airport MTA7 ( Water-Tanks West
300 Airport MTB1 3 Yucca Pwr. Plant 3000
Month Yf (kWh/kW)

Year Yf (kWh/kW)

Arizona Public Service Co. operates numerous grid-

connected PV systems within its service territory [11].
Table 2 contains a listing of some of these systems and
their Yf values for the 12-month period of September 2003 200 2000
through August 2004. Because the solar resource (Yr) is
greater for the single-axis tracking systems, their Yf values
are larger than those for the non-tracking systems. 100 1000

For the single-axis tracking systems, Fig. 4 shows monthly

and yearly Yf values for the 12-month period. Yf values
were largest for the Airport MTA2 and the Yucca power 0 0
plant systems, primarily because their PV modules’ S O N D J F M A M J J A Yr
performance met their nameplate expectations. The other 2003 2004
systems performed at a lower level because of a
combination of factors: PV module performance, inverter Fig. 4. Monthly and yearly Yf for Arizona Public Service single-
efficiency, and operational problems. Specifically, for the axis trackers for September 2003 through August 2004.

4
against that of the other systems. For a single system, a logbook entries reporting snowfall and for three days in
similar strategy might be used by dividing it into two or February when the system was off. Depending on the
more subsystems, with each having their own inverter and amount of snow, daily PR values as low as zero occurred.
a.c. metering. The influence of snow is also evident in the weekly and
monthly PR values, but to a lesser extent.
EXAMPLE RESULTS FOR PR
As an example of using PR to measure long-term
The PR is a dimensionless quantity that indicates the changes in performance, Fig. 6 presents—for three PV
overall effect of losses on the rated output. By itself, it systems—the linear least-square fits of monthly PR values
does not represent the amount of energy produced, over a period of several years. For comparison, results
because a system with a low PR in a high solar resource using the PVUSA method are also shown. Both methods
location might produce more energy than a system with a show similar degradation rates, even though they use
high PR in a low solar resource location. However, for any somewhat different input data. Whereas the calculation of
given system, location, and time; if a change in component PR uses all values of irradiance, the PVUSA method
or design increases the PR, the Yf increases accordingly. restricts irradiance values to 800 W/m2 or above. To
PR values are useful for determining if the system is examine only the effects of long-term performance
operating as expected and for identifying the occurrence changes, both methods excluded data when the a.c.
of problems due to inverter operation (faults/failures, peak- power value indicated the system was not operating. If
power tracking, software/control), circuit-breaker trips, instead the intent had been to evaluate overall system
solder-bond failures inside PV module junction boxes, performance, data would not have been excluded and
diode failures, inoperative trackers, shading, snow, soiling, values would have been less. The results depicted in Fig.
long-term PV system degradation, or other failures. Large 6 are an example of using PR to measure performance
decreases in PR indicate events that significantly impact changes over time, and are not meant as a definitive
performance, such as inverters not operating or circuit- analysis of a PV technology’s long-term performance for
breaker trips. Small or moderate decreases in PR indicate Denver or any other location. The relative performance of
that a less severe problem exists. The PR can identify the the three systems was influenced by using inverters with
existence of a problem, but not the cause. The cause of different conversion efficiencies
the problem requires further investigation, which may
include a site visit by maintenance personnel. Decreases 1.0 1400
in PR from soiling or long-term PV system degradation a-Si/a-Si/a-Si:Ge PV System, 1224 Wdc

PVUSA Rating (W ac)

0.9
may not be readily evident unless viewed over months, or 0.8 1200
years in the case of the latter. Decreases from soiling are
site- and weather-dependent, with greater soiling (up to 0.7
PR

1000
25% for some California locations) for high-traffic, high- 0.6
pollution areas with infrequent rain. 0.5 800
0.4 PR, degradation = 1.5% per year
For 2001, Fig. 5 presents daily, weekly, and monthly PVUSA, degradation = 1.1% per year
PR values for the NREL SERF PV system described in a 1.0 1400
CdS/CdTe PV System, 1200 Wdc

PVUSA Rating (W ac)

previous section. For most of the year, the PR values are 0.9
consistent with those modeled for the same system and 0.8 1200
shown in Fig. 1. But for winter and spring months, PR 0.7
PR

values are lower for days coinciding with 1000

0.6
1.0 0.5 800
0.4 PR, degradation = 1.2% per year
PVUSA, degradation = 1.4% per year
0.8 1.0
Single-crystal Si PV System, 7420 Wdc 8000
PVUSA Rating (W ac)

0.9
0.8 7000
0.6
0.7
PR
PR

6000
0.6
0.4 5000
0.5
0.4 PR, degradation = 0.9% per year
4000
Monthly PVUSA, degradation = 1.3% per year
0.2
Weekly
Daily 1994 1998 2002 2006
0.0
Fig. 6. Long-term degradation rates for three PV systems at
J F M A M J J A S O N D NREL from monthly values of PR and PVUSA ratings. Upper
regression lines from monthly PR values shown by + symbols.
Fig. 5. Daily, weekly, and monthly PR values for the NREL SERF Lower regression lines from monthly PVUSA values shown by û
PV system for 2001. symbols.

5
and operating characteristics. Also, the reliability of these [4] T. Nordmann and L. Clavadetscher, “Understanding
small systems may not be representative of that of larger Temperature Effects on PV System Performance,”
systems, and performance changes may have been Proceedings of the 3rd World Conference on PV Energy
different if tested in a different climate or location. For the Conversion, Osaka, Japan, 2003.
system using the a-Si/a-Si/a-Si:Ge PV modules, data
collection began after being deployed for several months [5] B. Marion and M. Anderberg. “PVWATTS—An Online
and their initial performance degradation had occurred. Performance Calculator for Grid-Connected PV Systems,”
Proceedings of the ASES Solar 2000 Conference, June
SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK 16-21, 2000, Madison, WI.

Three performance parameters may be used to define [6] “PVDesign Pro User’s Manual,” Maui Solar Software
the performance of grid-connected PV systems: final PV Corporation, 1988.
system yield Yf, reference yield Yr, and performance ratio
PR. The Yf and PR are determined using the nameplate [7] H. Wenger, “PVGrid User’s Manual,” PowerLight
d.c. power rating. The Yf is the primary measure of Corporation, 1990.
performance and is expressed in units of kWh/kW. It
provides a relative measure of the energy produced and [8] A. Detrick, A. Kimber, and L. Mitchell, “Performance
permits comparisons of PV systems of different size, Evaluation Standards for Photovoltaic Modules &
design, or technology. If comparisons are made for Systems,” Proceedings of the 31st IEEE Photovoltaic
different time periods or locations, it should be recognized Specialists Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL, 2005 (in
that year-to-year variations in the solar resource will press).
influence Yf. The PR factors out solar resource variations
by dividing Yf by the solar radiation resource, Yr. This [9] D. Menicucci and J. Fernandez, “User’s Manual for
provides a dimensionless quantity that indicates the PVFORM: A Photovoltaic System Simulation Program for
overall effect of losses and may be used to identify when Stand-Alone and Grid-Interactive Applications,” SAND85-
operational problems occur or to evaluate long-term 0376, Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories,
changes in performance. As part of an operational and 1988.
maintenance program, the PR may be used to identify the
existence of performance issues. [10] NSRDB Vol. 1, “User’s Manual—National Solar
Radiation Data Base (1961-1990),” Golden, CO: National
To further encourage the use of common reporting Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1992.
and design practices for PV systems, future activities
should include: (1) additional work to gain support for an [11] L. Moore, H. Post, H. Hayden, S. Canada, and D.
industry-standard set of performance parameters and Narang, “Photovoltaic Power Plant Experience at Arizona
system derating factors, (2) additional measurements for Public Service: A 5-Year Assessment,” Progress in
verifying individual derate factors (e.g., inverter, Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 2005; (in press).
transformer, wiring, soiling,). Although using an overall
derate factor yielded ratings close to that of the PVUSA
method, a better knowledge of the individual derate factors
would provide closer agreement and identify areas to
improve system performance, and (3) development of a
“Buyer’s Guide” to explain performance parameters and
system rating factors to potential investors and describe
which system aspects are the biggest drivers of
performance (e.g., inverter efficiency, module efficiency,
reliability, performance degradation rate, system siting).

REFERENCES

[1] IEC, “Photovoltaic System Performance Monitoring—

Guidelines for Measurement, Data Exchange, and
Analysis, IEC Standard 61724,” Geneva, Switzerland,
1998.

[2] U. Jahn and W. Nasse, “Performance Analysis and

Reliability of Grid-Connected PV Systems in IEA
rd
Countries,” Proceedings of the 3 World Conference on
PV Energy Conversion, Osaka, Japan, 2003.

[3] R. Dows, “PVUSA Procurement, Acceptance, and

Rating Practices for Photovoltaic Power Plants,” PG&E
Co. Report #95-30910000.1, Sept. 1995.

6
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents
should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a
currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
February 2005 Conference Paper 3-7 January 2005
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Performance Parameters for Grid-Connected PV Systems DE-AC36-99-GO10337
5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

B. Marion, J. Adelstein, K. Boyle, H. Hayden, B. Hammond, NREL/CP-520-37358
T. Fletcher, B. Canada, D. Narang, D. Shugar, H. Wenger,
5e. TASK NUMBER
A. Kimber, L. Mitchell, G. Rich, and T. Townsend
PVC57101
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO REPORT NUMBER
80401-3393 NREL/CP-520-37358
Arizona Public Service Co., 1500 E. University Dr., Tempe, AZ 85281
PowerLight Corporation, 2954 San Pablo Ave., Berkeley, CA 94702
First Solar, 4050 E. Cotton Center Blvd. #6-68, Phoenix. AZ 85040
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)
NREL

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

The use of appropriate performance parameters facilitates the comparison of grid-connected photovoltaic (PV)
systems that may differ with respect to design, technology, or geographic location. Four performance parameters that
define the overall system performance with respect to the energy production, solar resource, and overall effect of
system losses are the following: final PV system yield, reference yield, performance ratio, and PVUSA rating. These
performance parameters are discussed for their suitability in providing desired information for PV system design and
performance evaluation and are demonstrated for a variety of technologies, designs, and geographic locations. Also
discussed are methodologies for determining system a.c. power ratings in the design phase using multipliers
developed from measured performance parameters.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
PV; performance parameters; grid-connected systems; energy production; solar resource; system yield; reference
yield; performance ratio; PVUSA rating; a.c. power ratings
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

F1147-E(12/2004)