Solar Energy Battery Backup Under Attack in California?

[kristopher]

Solar Energy Battery Backup Under Attack in California?

California is no stranger to rolling blackouts. When Charles and Elke Hewitt installed a solar electric system with batteries for emergency backup power on their home this April, they were shocked when Southern California Edison rejected their application for grid connection under their net metering program. And the Hewitt family was not alone. Soon all homeowners with solar electric systems with battery backup in California could be affected by Edison’s stance on backup power.

Edison informed the couple their application for grid connection was denied because the batteries they used to store energy for emergency backup power when the grid went down were considered “power generators” and not energy storage devices, said Charles Hewitt. Edison said Hewitt did not qualify for their net metering program because the utility could not distinguish between power produced by the solar panels and power produced by the batteries, which it considers a nonrenewable source of power, he said. Edison explained their policy had not changed. It was the equipment that had changed.

“We were excited to use our system and stop paying electric bills,” he said. “Summers are peak production for solar and now we are told we can’t use our system. I have thousands of dollars of PV system sitting on my roof that now I can’t use.”

The 3.7 kilowatt solar electric system installed on the Hewitt home in Santa Barbara uses an Outback grid-tied 48-volt battery system for backup power. Hewitt said his battery bank only stores power; it doesn’t produce it. The problem is, the system uses an inverter/charge controller design that does not allow batteries to be separated from the system, he said. In other words, if he disconnects the battery bank from the system, the system won’t work.

When asked if the utility could be worried homeowners will charge batteries during off-peak hours and then sell excess power back to the grid during peak hours (buy low/sell high), Hewitt rejected this idea. “This is a pretty small battery bank,” he said. “Our batteries are metal nickel hydride batteries. There aren’t a whole lot of kilowatts you can pull out of those batteries before they are ruined and they are very expensive. If Edison thinks homeowners will be using these batteries to cheat a few dollars off our electric bill is nonsense. The main reason people get backup systems is for emergency backup power only when the grid goes down.”

The Outback inverter Hewitt uses has been on the California Energy Commission approved equipment list for eight years and ...

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/08/solar-battery-backup-under-attack-in-california?cmpid=SolarNL-2013-08-08

[hedgehog]

1. Even if people were planning to buy power at the off-peak and

sell it back during peak demand hours, what's wrong with that? They have put up the capital needed (Purchase of batteries) to ensure that the grid can supply peak demand. It's to the utility's advantage because it is not required to buy equipment for peak times that is idles during times of low demand.

[Yo_Mama]

4. I had to read the whole article to understand it

The configuration of the system is such that the battery bank charges both from grid electricity and from the solar panels. When it is charging from the solar panels, it is "green" electricity. When it is charging from the grid electricity, of course it is using electricity from whatever sources the grid is pulling from, which at times will be coal and so forth.

So the power companies are saying that the electricity from the batteries does not qualify for the renewable net metering system, which is only allowed for renewable sources. Either that electricity flow should only go within the house, or they won't give the credits.

[oldhippie]

5. But that's the way every battery backed grid intertie inverter works .....

... that I am aware of.

Either that electricity flow should only go within the house, or they won't give the credits.

The normal programming would not allow battery energy to go back to the grid. The whole idea of the design is that the battery energy is used only to power some reduced loads in the house only when the grid goes down, and will not use battery energy to put power back in the grid. The homeowner that has paid for the battery backup would not want his battery discharged when the grid goes down and he needs the battery energy to keep his lights on.

The power companies are being disingenuous and I think they will eventually be slapped down on this.

[Yo_Mama]

6. I would think so

When the grid goes down, the inverter automatically cuts off, so this thing is not going to be powering the grid when that happens.

But the batteries do get charged from both sources, and if there is a lower voltage condition, the excess power would flow back into the grid.

I don't think this decision makes any sense whatsoever. The only real impact is that the batteries will somewhat even out local voltage fluctuations. They would never serve as anything the normal person would see as generation.

[oldhippie]

2. I saw that this morning in my daily email from ....

... Renewable Energy World. Hard to figure out what is going on. Every battery backed grid-tie inverter I am aware of is programmed to only charge the battery bank from PV or utility power, and NEVER to send battery power back to the grid. It wouldn't make sense to do so, as the battery is there to provide power only when the grid goes down.

I suspect some mid to high level SoCalEd manager was told that the inverters COULD MAYBE be hacked and re-programmed to use cheap nighttime grid power to charge the batteries and sell it back at peak hours for a profit. But it would be a total hack and contrary to the designed purpose. But some manager panicked and changed the policy. Dumb.

The utilities are obviously spooked by the rise of PV intertie and net metering and the effect on their business model, but this is ridiculous. I am surprised the CPUC has initially let them get away with this, but I suspect they will change that soon and slap down the utilities for irrational obstruction. But it sucks to be the PV system homeowners that are the test cases.

[mbperrin]

3. Well, corporate evil and/or stupidity are unlimited resources, after all.

They either would love to find any excuse to reject buying power from - gasp- consumers, or they actually believe that batteries produce power!

So pick one.

[quadrature]

7. 'Death Star' tactics, not allowed

in general, you are not allowed to...

buy electricity at a time of your choosing,
and sell that electricity back at a different time
of your choosing.

you can't go into a grocery store --> buy something.
next day price goes up -->
you demand to sell that thing back at higher price.
no. no. no