States/Cities Attempting To Limit You Self Produced Power...

AntronX said:

It's literally an observation of system behavior. Demand on the grid goes down in midday as more solar is connected. I don't see how this is a lie.

Click to expand...

Yes it is an observation of system behavior, However a portion of it is a represention of NET demand during midday as solar offsets actually demand from the home. Also any exported power just gets distributed to other users before any of it show up at the substation as export.

Ampster said:

However a portion of it is a represention of NET demand during midday as solar offsets actually demand from the home.

Click to expand...

Yes that's true. But to utility and power market it appears as lower demand and is reflected in wholesale prices making them cheapest during max solar generation.

Hedges said:

We don't want the Texas situation where power producers optimize their total profit and the system collapses in a cold spell.

Click to expand...

The backstory is that Texas ignored the FERC recommendations about winterizing supply. This resulted in wind tubines not functioning in the cold. The worse thing that happend was Natural Gas suppplies were not winterized by dehumidifying gas lines so the moisture condensed and froze in the lines reducing or disabling gas supplies to generating stations and the system collapsed. Saving money by not spending on risk management mitigations is long term not optimizing total profit in the long term.

AntronX said:

Altruism does not feed your family. People want to earn an income to live.

Click to expand...

We want to earn an income and PG&E wants to earn an income and people sitting on the PUC board want to earn an income.

Some producers have negotiating power and lobbyists. Rooftop PV owners to not. The closest we come is PV installers who want a market.

The goal should be a reliable grid, cleaner environment, improved national security. That is where someone with altruistic motives could come in.

Utility and PUC will do everything they can to screw over the consumer. PG&E (and others) request was an $0.08/kWh photon tax and $0.05 credit for backfeeding power, which works out to net $0.03 charge to consumers for every kWh we give PG&E (so they can sell it for $0.25 to our neighbor.) And $0.08/kWh net charge for power we make and use ourselves. PUC's approved plan was $0.05 charge for PV production and $0.05 credit for backfeed (we were to receive a big fat zero.) I proposed we ought to also be charged for raindrops that water our yard.

To me, the solution is a Solar Embargo, where all rooftop PV users shut off our generation on a hot day and collapse the grid, bringing California, Oregon, Washinton, Vancouver, Ensenada to a grinding halt. Then we negotiate the rate we charge for our power. (If you don't like that approach, give us a fair credit for exports.)

AntronX said:

It's literally an observation of system behavior. Demand on the grid goes down in midday as more solar is connected. I don't see how this is a lie.

Click to expand...

You can draw any similar graph, for instance total of all consumption minus peaker plants. That would show power from peaker plants is not needed because it only comes when powrer consumption is lowest, early evening.

I call the Duck's Back curve a lie, because it appears to show demand is lowest when PV is producing, but that is when demand is highest. It is used to show that net metering or good credits for backfeed should be eliminated, when in fact the grid could not stay up without rooftop solar. Because utilities and wholesale generators have not put in the capacity for actual demand.

Whatever PG&E did not spend on infrastructure to deliver total power demand (because it is generated locally) is part of the value of rooftop PV. What they did not spend to buy that 8GW to 14GW, is part of the value. The higher natural gas prices which would exist to support 8 ~ 14 GW of peaker plant is part of the saved power price. Which was especially high in the West recently.

Hedges said:

and people sitting on the PUC board want to earn an income.

Click to expand...

And they want a career after there time on the Board is up. That is why many of them become lobbyists for the industry or end up working for one of the IOUs that they were regulating. That career path is not what I call as effective regulation.

Hedges said:

when in fact the grid could not stay up without rooftop solar. Because utilities and wholesale generators have not put in the capacity for actual demand.

Click to expand...

Hmm, that sounds like a misconception. Grid operator already maintains adequate reserve to feed peak demand in the evening when solar goes away while cooling load is highest. The grid would not collapse without rooftop or utility PV. The only value PV produces is preventing some natural gas from being burned in the day. But the grid still has to maintain same amount of dispatchable capacity regardless if there was solar or not.

Ampster said:

The backstory is that Texas ignored the FERC recommendations about winterizing supply. This resulted in wind tubines not functioning in the cold.

Click to expand...

Why should private entities be required to spend money on winterizing if they are not compensated for it? Altruism does not write checks. People in Texas vote for cheap power prices and that's their choice. Besides, 2021 Texas was not a total blackout but a load shed event of 20GW out of nearly 80GW record demand.

AntronX said:

No, this curve shows demand from behind the meter loads partially being offset by behind the meter solar. Peak demand happens around 6 - 7 pm when air conditioner load is highest and people get back home from work. The SEIA 39 GW total PV number is interesting but is likely is a DC nameplate number extrapolated from incomplete data by overly optimistic analysts at WoodMac. It certainly does not show up in the CAISO charts on a perfect sunny day. Chances are a bunch of those systems are either inoperable or have been repowered with new solar modules which WoodMac would likely count as additional capacity.

Click to expand...

You are correct the load shown is the load the grid operator is seeing from the meters (please see comment below). They have no way to see whats behind the meter.
And yes the peak is effected by A/C load people coming home after work cranking up the Air Conditioning. The evening peak is also effected by Cooking Load, which is often the largest instantaneous load in a home.

Otherwise I am not certain of how CAISO reports its loads on its running graphs but other BA's (Balancing Authorities) pull their data directly from SCADA data (meters at each Generation and Load site). It is the simplest and easiest way to do it and suspect it's what they do also.

And yes that means every rooftop and backyard Solar that has a meter and is being measured! That is why they "freak-out" whenever someone back feeds the grid without permission and a proper meter.

If they couldn't see the generation and load how would they Balance it? Again they must match generation with load at all times. It is an active and computerized process.

For the record:

My take on the OP's concern is that NO government or entity should have any right to tell you can't have Off-Grid solar!
You have the right to reduce your load anytime and in anyway you feel like it!

Grid-tied solar is another matter... The Grid stability concerns are real.

I don't disagree with anyone's concern about them changing the contracts with existing solar owners in the middle of the game. It is very valid concern. You signed a contract and they can just break or rewrite? Not acceptable!

AntronX said:

Hmm, that sounds like a misconception. Grid operator already maintains adequate reserve to feed peak demand in the evening when solar goes away while cooling load is highest. The grid would not collapse without rooftop or utility PV. The only value PV produces is preventing some natural gas from being burned in the day. But the grid still has to maintain same amount of dispatchable capacity regardless if there was solar or not.

Click to expand...

If it is true that peak consumption is in the evening, when there is no solar.

If, however, I am correct that peak consumption is mid-afternoon, then maybe they do not have adequate reserve (without PV as supply on sunny days when A/C demand is highest.)

I thought we had grid collapsing in the middle of the day, but I'm only finding dates not times online so can't confirm.

Trip.Diamond said:

My take on the OP's concern is that NO government or entity should have any right to tell you can't have Off-Grid solar!
You have the right to reduce your load anytime and in anyway you feel like it!

Click to expand...

Although, if you reduce load on the grid most of the time, then suddenly rely on it during a cloudy day or eclipse, you may not be paying fair share for excess capacity generators and grid need to maintain.

That is where "demand charge" already exists in some markets. You pay a fee based on highest peak draw for the previous month or whatever.


That is how I would like to see "rich" people charged for their use of the grid, when they otherwise roll their own power and let "poor" people subsidize them by paying for the grid.

Except, if they draw power off-peak, utilizing an otherwise idle grid, they are the ones subsidizing it.

Instead, we see effort to do away with net metering or reduce feed-in credit too low. And now, flat-rate charge for distribution, sliding scale based on income (regardless of grid usage.)

Many, many years ago I remember a new car wash concept was being built here in Texas. They collected rainwater from the roof, and stored in it large underground tanks.

We'll the city (can't remember which one, been too long) shut them down. Told them it was ILLEGAL TO COLLECT RAIN WATER.

Let that sink in.

EDIT: I think they may have changed the rules now.

AntronX said:

Why should private entities be required to spend money on winterizing if they are not compensated for it?

Click to expand...

The irony was that compliance with FERC regulations would have allowed participation in some regional grids which might have saved the day and it did in West Texas. The loss of compensation as a result of the weather shutting down supply was a risk they misjudged. I am a free market advocate but there are some benefits of collaboration that most of Texas did not think it neceessary. Interesting West Texas did join a regional grid and did not experience the same issues.

BradCagle said:

We'll the city (can't remember which one, been too long) shut them down. Told them it was ILLEGAL TO COLLECT RAIN WATER.

Click to expand...

Could it have been due to city doing sewer usage billing by measuring water meter readings? A car wash bypassing city water with rain water would not be getting billed for city sewer usage while actually using the service.

Ampster said:

The irony was that compliance with FERC regulations would have allowed participation in some regional grids which might have saved the day and it did in West Texas.

Click to expand...

I recall reading a comment from a grid operator employee that surrounding states were also severely overloaded and there was little extra capacity to share with Texas anyway, they were short 20 GW and that's not something other states would keep available, especially during their own record demand event at the same time.

Trip.Diamond said:

(Balancing Authorities) pull their data directly from SCADA data (meters at each Generation and Load site). It is the simplest and easiest way to do it and suspect it's what they do also.

Click to expand...

My understanding is the Generation and load sites where that data is available is the substations. By then all the power exported by rooftop solar have been distributed so all they are seeing is the NET demand. I don't know the value of actually knowing the amount exported and I do not know if the system is capable of getting real time data form individual Smart meters. My sense is that in some cases that data is only available on a batch basis once a day.
I have also heard that some of the Supervisory Contral And Data Acquisiton systems are not bidirectional and that is a weakness in some older parts of the grid.

Hedges said:

If it is true that peak consumption is in the evening, when there is no solar.
If, however, I am correct that peak consumption is mid-afternoon, then maybe they do not have adequate reserve (without PV as supply on sunny days when A/C demand is highest.)
I thought we had grid collapsing in the middle of the day, but I'm only finding dates not times online so can't confirm.

Click to expand...

On 9/06/2022 CA grid had peak demand day. Here are CAISO charts:




You can see that system peak happens right as solar begins to fall off at 4.30 - 5pm. In midday around noon demand crosses net RA capacity which is system capacity on that day minus utility wind/solar. Behind the meter solar barely makes a dent on demand curve that day. Compare it to 5/12/23 net demand, note the duck curve in upper light blue total demand curve corresponding to behind the meter generation offsetting total demand. That effect is missing from 9/06/22 annual peak demand day suggesting that behind the meter solar dose very little to help the grid on those once a year days that utility has to maintain capacity to be ready for. This is the proof in my opinion that consumer side solar is not that important beyond saving some natural gas for the utility.

AntronX said:

I recall reading a comment from a grid operator employee that surrounding states were also severely overloaded and there was little extra capacity to share with Texas

Click to expand...

That did not matter to West Texas since to join that grid intertie they had to winterize their equipment and therefore did not have the fundemental failures of generation which plagued the rest of Texas. In the Texas scenerio the fundemental failure was their own generation which would have been prevented by winterizing. It was a risk management decision based on a flawed analyisis of the risk and consequence of an unusual cold snap.

Hedges said:

I thought we had grid collapsing in the middle of the day, but I'm only finding dates not times online so can't confirm.

Click to expand...

We had a fear of but no actual events. That is hearsay as well as some claims that batteries saved the day. The only thing that I think is factual is that we had no actual events of the grid collapsing. I see in one of the charts the effect of Demand Response events and I do not know what that includes? There is still a lot to be learned from analyzing those charts.

Ampster said:

That did not matter to West Texas since to join that grid intertie they had to winterize their equipment and therefore did not have the fundemental failures of generation which plagued the rest of Texas.

Click to expand...

I wonder if West Texas having much lower population density and therefore less demand could have played a role more than simply winterizing. But I don't feel like digging more into this.

AntronX said:

I wonder if West Texas having much lower population density and therefore less demand could have played a role more than simply winterizing. But I don't feel like digging more into this

Click to expand...

I am sure it was multiple factors and we have enough issues is California that I can chose to dig into if I make the time. I will let my friends in Texas worry about their grid.

AntronX said:

Why should private entities be required to spend money on winterizing if they are not compensated for it?

Click to expand...

The private entities are being allowed to compete in what appears to be a HIGHLY regulated market. I imagine there are numerous government incentives provided to electricity generators by various government entities to encourage them to join or stay in the game.

The real question is, what level of power availability should be required for the private entity to get to play in the energy market? What are the penalties for not meeting their obligations?

Whatever the obligations were, they were obviously not high enough.. or the penalties for not meeting them were not high enough.