4 ms·

> I don’t know what the solution is, but the problems are pretty easy to see. In theory, if you were dealing with one entity, it could be pretty easy. But you

by oogali 5y ago

> I don’t know what the solution is, but the problems are pretty easy to see. 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.

SilasX 5y ago
Maybe it's just me, but I don't get how any of that translates to a defense of the utilities' overall behavior. (Though I appreciate the context -- thanks!) 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.
- oogali 5y ago
  > Maybe it's just me, but I don't get how any of that translates to a defense of the utilities' overall behavior. 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 https://www.ercot.com/services/rq/integration 2: https://utcle.org/elibrary/download/practice_area_id/32/a/51018/p/1 https://utcle.org/elibrary/download/practice_area_id/32/a/51...

by oogali 5y ago

SilasX 5y ago

Maybe it's just me, but I don't get how any of that translates to a defense of the utilities' overall behavior. (Though I appreciate the context -- thanks!) 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.

oogali 5y ago
> Maybe it's just me, but I don't get how any of that translates to a defense of the utilities' overall behavior. 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 https://www.ercot.com/services/rq/integration 2: https://utcle.org/elibrary/download/practice_area_id/32/a/51018/p/1 https://utcle.org/elibrary/download/practice_area_id/32/a/51...