olivinelife
New Member
You are suggesting the tail wags the dog in both physics and politically. Frequency rises because of oversupply, not as an independent variable. If frequency rises too much, then removing supply is absolutely the right thing to do.Put another way, if you wanted to curtail rooftop PV by employing a tactic of raising the grid's frequency, then you'd have to add more supply (or remove load or both) in order to cause a rise in grid frequency. That makes zero sense if you are attempting to remove supply (i.e. rooftop PV) in the first place.
You are absolutely right that frequency-watt is not a tactical form of control, whatever that means. From the utility's point of view, they would love to tactically shut off everyone's rooftop PV forever (at least in California) because it's a huge money-loser due to lost revenue from inflated utility rates. As you mentioned, physically they cannot do that on purpose, but secondarily and more importantly, they cannot do that politically either because it would be reneging on existing NEM contracts with individual customers. That is precisely the reason why it's possible for prices to go negative at all. Other players pay the cost for rooftop PVs oversupply.
Anyways, the answer is more battery storage everywhere, and with increasing grid interactivity. Your own linked chart shows this. VPP is still a new concept that needs to be refined more to fit the distributed energy landscape of the future.