> If they could redirect this money to small generators like yourself and have the same impact, they would drop their demand management programs in a heartbeat
The catch is that the power from small solar generators isn't as valuable as demand management loads, because solar generators aren't controllable - the grid has to just absorb the power they put out regardless of whether it needs it.
Now, if every solar installation had its own battery system that could provide power back to the grid on demand, that would be an equivalent service. And in fact in many places (Vermont [1], parts of California[2]) there are programs starting or in development to do exactly that: buy energy back from residential batteries.
1. https://greenmountainpower.com/rebates-programs/home-energy-...
However, these are complementary technologies, serving different time and scale of energy storage and duration. Home batteries aren't realistically going to solve storage on the weeks to season timeframe. They function on the order of hours to a couple days, and during local distribution outages.
Building grid scale storage still means grid itself needs to be updated for the increasing loads and spikes.
And I'm talking here smart batteries - controlled by grid owner. How it's not default (including solar, cars and other high load devices) it's a bit of a puzzler. Sure it's like 5 minutes of inconvenience for the owner, but saves trillions of dollars.
Why can't they like, suggest to the relevant authorities, that it be refactored along more logical lines, where solar power generators have the appropriate checks for safety (before feeding into the grid), and are paid a significant fraction of the value their power adds to the network?
I don't expect them to be Remy-Danton-grade workaholic lobbyist heroes. But if they recognize that there are perverse incentives, why aren't they pushing, however gently and tepidly, for natural fixes to the misalignment of incentives?
If you were in a startup that had fundamentally screwed up incentives that prevented the optimal solution, you (like most here) would probably at least start writing the document that outlines what the system should look like, and push a little towards its implementation.
So where is that document? Why is their first reaction to create this passive-aggressive Kafkaesque barrier to integrating solar, knowing that it slows down solar roll-out and our efforts to decarbonize?
Why can't they answer the criticisms as, "oh, yeah -- you're preaching to the choir here. This is how we'd prefer it work, but we can't get the others to agree."
If they actually do that, then I accept that they may be operating in the least bad option. If not, they are making the problem worse, and do merit the criticisms levied at them here.
It's not a defense of utilities, it's more about shining a light on regulatory actions.
I referenced the regulatory parts several times because that's the largest factor of what they can and cannot do. For example, in most states, an electric utility must first seek regulatory approval to raise prices even for emergency infrastructure repairs.
> Why can't they like, suggest to the relevant authorities, that it be refactored along more logical lines, where solar power generators have the appropriate checks for safety (before feeding into the grid), and are paid a significant fraction of the value their power adds to the network?
The resulting Kafka-esque bits were what regional grid operators and regulators jointly required _a long time ago_ as part of the transition to a "deregulated" electricity market (e.g. this was not enacted in response to solar).
Those bits effectively add up to "make sure your power source(s) meet these bullet points before connecting them to the grid because we don't want unreliable power... or we'll fine you heavily for non-compliance and/or revoke your authority to operate in our territory".
If you, as a private commercial entity wanted to build a large-scale solar farm (or what's more typical nowadays: a cogeneration plant), you would probably go through the exact same process you went through with maybe a handful of extra steps, but not many more.
> But if they recognize that there are perverse incentives, why aren't they pushing, however gently and tepidly, for natural fixes to the misalignment of incentives?
For a more detailed example that's relevant to your area, take a look at ERCOT's interconnection guide[1] and a review document from UT Law about the current status and legal barriers to greater adoption of renewable energy in ERCOT territory[2].
Yes, it would be ideal if the the regulators could make a carve out for non-commercial, small-scale generators and allow it at cost or a state fund to draw from (e.g. if you're the only one in your neighborhood doing net metering, then someone has to bear the cost of say, pole-mounted capacitor banks: you, the state, the utility, or some combination thereof).
> If you were in a startup that had fundamentally screwed up incentives that prevented the optimal solution, you (like most here) would probably at least start writing the document that outlines what the system should look like, and push a little towards its implementation.
There are a slew of investors who want things relaxed so they can enter these markets.
Currently, that battle is being fought (and won) by entities known as distributed generators. These tend to comprise of the folks who are selling PV systems to homeowners for $0 down in turn for you leasing it to them but the giant caveat is they keep 100% of the credits/revenue from net metering. (Think of SolarCity, etc)
And to address the primary hurdles with the startup approach are:
1. Regulators like large entities to deal with and enforce regulations, not several entities. They will push back to make their lives easier.
2. If you ask a large company (or group of investors) to fight on your behalf, they are going to fight for what benefits them not necessarily you.
There are consequences to going rogue in a regulated industry. Specifically, going against the grain is what caused Uber to be disallowed from operating its ride share services in Austin for some time.
1: https://www.ercot.com/services/rq/integration
2: https://utcle.org/elibrary/download/practice_area_id/32/a/51...
That’s not the part I was referring to as Kafkaesque. I meant the part where the OP had to go though an obscured workflow and wait over months to receive slow replies just to get the process moving to be paid for their solar contribution.
If it was a long time because that was an inherent difficulty of complying with necessary safety regulations, I would not call it Kafkaesque. But here, it’s where there are obvious attempts to scare off all but the most diligent, just to get the super-watered-down version of being paid.
Ditto for stuff like “you can only trade energy within the same time bands because we have no concept of a conversion factor between different time bands”.
This is the same workflow that commercial entities go through but employ an army of lawyers as expensive lubrication to keep the process moving.
> If it was a long time because that was an inherent difficulty of complying with necessary safety regulations...
Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but I think you're classifying regulations as primarily for safety reasons. The important part here is regulations determine not only safety, but who can participate, what are the required qualifications[1], who gets paid, and what they get paid[2].
> But here, it’s where there are obvious attempts to scare off all but the most diligent...
Yes, the regulations are fully meant to scare off anyone who isn't diligent (or the word they would prefer is "compliant").
> ...just to get the super-watered-down version of being paid.
This might be a bit of hyperbole, but it's probably because the end goal is to eliminate net metering[3].
The telecom industry went through the exact same thing in the late '90s, early '00s. Its version of net metering is called "reciprocal compensation" (based on call flows). Regulators and incumbent lawyers worked in tandem to chip away at this until the rates were so low it didn't matter.
> Ditto for stuff like “you can only trade energy within the same time bands because we have no concept of a conversion factor between different time bands”.
Hoo boy, look at page 4 and 5 of that TX PUC document[3] where the regulators make a decision to disallow the utilities from using meters that would allow for net metering due to time bands.
1: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/UT/htm/UT.37.htm
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing
3: https://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/rulesnlaws/subrules/electri...
And? How does that make it any more defensible in the context of the point I was making there? What is that replying to?
> Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but I think you're classifying regulations as primarily for safety reasons.
No, I was referring back to your own claim[1] that some of them are for that reason:
>>> The primary things the utility (both transmission and generation) wants to avoid is backfeeding and islanding — the former is dangerous to linemen, the latter is dangerous to your neighbors’ equipment.
And then using that in a hypothetical to clarify what I would vs would not count as Kafkaesque processes intended to scare off solar users (vs satisfy an inherent domain constraint).
I don’t know what, once read in context, would give a different impression.
> This might be a bit of hyperbole, but it's probably because the end goal is to eliminate net metering[3].
Yes? That was my point all along? That rather than make token efforts to get the incentives in alignment, they’re just stubbornly fighting things that would benefit solar because “sigh, more work [as things currently stand]”.
> Yes, the regulations are fully meant to scare off anyone who isn't diligent (or the word they would prefer is "compliant").
You’re mixing two separate issues there. Yes, we want people to comply with regulations. No, we don’t want to trick people into not selling their solar because they failed to keep calling and escalating their tickets to an agency that ghosts them. I was referring to the latter, and for some reason you’re redefining the point to refer to the former, and then acting like I don’t understand why we’d want people who can follow regulations.
> Hoo boy, look at page 4 and 5 of that TX PUC document[3] where the regulators make a decision to disallow the utilities from using meters that would allow for net metering due to time bands.
I’m not sure what that means since it’s not a coherent claim, as I understand the original issue, which was whether you can apply credit for power supplied in one time to power drawn at a different time *on your bill.
So “crediting you for your power contribution” is an accounting-level concept, not a hardware-level concept. You trade energy at one time for energy at another time via accounting; you don’t need special meters for it beyond their ability to know when the power passed through. (Unless you’re saying that they prohibited meters with any awareness of time, which is doubtful since they still would need to use billing periods.)
> Yes? That was my point all along? That rather than make token efforts to get the incentives in alignment, they’re just stubbornly fighting things that would benefit solar because “sigh, more work [as things currently stand]”.
It's not defensible. I'm stating what exists today and it's uniform for GiantPowerMegaco who wants to bring on megawatts of capacity or the Doe who just wants to light up a few panels on their roof.
My overall points have been a) this is entrenched for a long time and b) the utilities are not the primary ones making the rules. Regular people may be noticing the friction now due to increased touch points via solar, but it's not in response to solar.
They did not calcify overnight. No, that doesn't make it right but it does make it harder to change. So things that are long entrenched but need change usually get the "sigh, more work" response and lots of push back.
> No, I was referring back to your own claim[1] that some of them are for that reason
> ...you’re redefining the point to refer to the former, and then acting like I don’t understand why we’d want people who can follow regulations.
I'm not redefining the point but I should have referenced that I was reacting to the callout of safety but the other aspects play into it just as much.
It's not my intention to imply you don't want people who can follow regulations -- it's more about clarifying that if one has to play in a regulated space you accept the whole pie and all its hangups, literal or figurative. Or not participate until the pie becomes more palatable.
The reason I mention law firms that operate in this space is they are generally ranked for their experience and ability to navigate around these confusing, slow, or non-existent responses from these agencies.
> “Crediting you for your power contribution” is an accounting-level concept, not a hardware-level concept. you don’t need special meters for it beyond their ability to know when the power passed through.
I guess my personal hangup here is on not allowing meters to rollback or "reverse".
The portion of the document I referenced is where the PUC says you cannot use a rollback meter for net metering but must instead use a meters specifically capable of measuring in-flow and out-flow.
They go on to state the reason for measuring out-flow is to determine when the energy was made available to calculate the wholesale market price at that given point in time.
In theory, if you were dealing with one entity, it could be pretty easy.
But you are actually dealing with multiple entities:
- your utility’s transmission subsidiary
- your utility’s generation subsidiary
- your applicable regulatory entities
- your regional grid operator/planning organization
> Well, this is not in the interest of the utility at all (they lose money), but they still by policy get to ‘approve it’. This required a many-month (and many phone call) process of reviews, approvals, etc. which concluded in the utility activating (installing a meter for) the installation.
Your utility would much rather just say no and be done with it.
They similarly have no financial interests in operating a Kafka-esque bureaucracy that requires them to staff entire departments that are a net drain on their revenue.
But they are obligated by the state regulator to have a uniform framework and process for electricity generators (which you are now) to interconnect with their transmission network (you to their lines).
This pulls you into the category of safety, reliability, and financial requirements which are typically only applied to commercial generators.
The primary things the utility (both transmission and generation) wants to avoid is backfeeding and islanding — the former is dangerous to linemen, the latter is dangerous to your neighbors’ equipment.
> However, the payout is hilariously low (like $0.01/kWh) so of course everyone chooses the bank.
The payout for generation is negotiated by three entities: the regional grid operator which is committing to purchasing capacity, the utility’s transmission operator which charges to interconnect and deliver your power, and the state regulator who has the FINAL say on rates.
Additionally, your utility along with every other utility in America is engaged in demand management programs.
The TL;DR version is utilities pay tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to vendors over the span of a multi-year contract to REDUCE electric demand.
This typically manifests itself to retail customers the form of free Nest thermostats, time of use programs, and subsidized appliance efficiency upgrades (or rebates).
If they could redirect this money to small generators like yourself and have the same impact, they would drop their demand management programs in a heartbeat (and the regulatory obligations that come with it).
I wrote this on my phone, so I can’t easily list references, but I did use a number of searchable terms that will lead you in the right direction.