“The central issue is simple, but not small: the electricity system will need to ask for access to consumer-owned storage without making people feel exposed, underpaid or used.”
Geoff, this is another fabulous article … I copied the above sentence (early in the article) as it did not set well with me … why became more apparent as i read through the essay.
… “does system need to ask” is not the right framing … because YES is the only possible answer (though EV OEMs and cabal partners trying to demand that EV owners must {1} ask permission to use their own battery and energy they put in it for #V2H, *and* {2} must ‘agree’ (acquiesce) to allow the “Fat Controller” operate the #V2G opportunity, clearly don’t that fundamental precept! But i digress …
… the far better question is what does the system really need … and how to make that “appear” …
All the aggregation models (are by default, and arguably are corralled by, the current market (and with it system) architecture … exclusively supply side only control.
That, sometime lost, is actually “profit by/through control”!
Consumers just want to save and have (their) value from what they own, and what they spend.
The problem for any business trying to make money (PROFIT) from “energy” (and that is just the energy NOT the transport, and services that DNSPs provide)* are irreconcilably conflicted with consumers who just to SAVE!
* so this where the battleground is (or should be!) DNSPs are regulated for “lowest community cost” (aka NEO) but under the NER are required to make tariffs for FRMPs (and now including DR Aggregators, VPPs etc.) —- but the fact is that DNSPs are agnostic to the value of energy (and should be apathetic to who they serve as long as the regulatory intent (NEO) is met!
What we are seeing though is corruption of opportunities to serve consumers (especially those with CER) and create community outcomes as the primary objective. The “participants” corrupting Ausgrid’s Project Edith Tariffs for their revenue and profit motives over the outcomes for consumers is a developing tragedy!
What we really need is tariffs and frameworks that drive SAVINGS for all consumers BUT especially for those consumers with CER!
The argument that opportunities for CER can (only) come through orchestrated market participants (led by VPPs, AEMO et all) is sophistry at best or outright lies, manipulation, and greed at the worst!
The stranglehold that the big three incumbents have, not just on the consumers they are the FRMP (Financially (IR)Responsible Market Participants) for, but the constraints they bind competitors in … including “undue influence” over tariff reform, and regulatory frameworks … is severely limiting the whole transformation, and ultimately increasing the costs we pay for our energy services by billions (including networks who consumers could make more productive).
As a recent investor/owner of a Rooftop Solar PV system DC-coupled to a CHBP 48kW GFM/SI BESS, I have the satisfaction of understanding:
1. I now earn money from the grid rather than pay a bill by working with a wholesale VPP.
2. My home is protected from the SAPN DNSP weaknesses that result in intermittent brownouts or blackouts through fast UPS level switching to Power Island mode if necessary, with whole-home backup.
3. My GFM/SI BESS provides a Voltage (V) and frequency (f) reference to the SAPN DNSP Grid that strengthens the DNSP grid, helping SAPN meet its obligations to keep its DNSP V within the AS IEC 60038 216 V to 253 V.
I am of the opinion that the Australian Energy Regulatory model is badly broken. The regulators appear to be heavily wed to the old Analog Grid model of operation and are struggling to break out of it as we transition to a Digital Grid model, as evidenced by SA’s 6-layer GFM/SI BESS model.
AEMC’s proposed 5-6x hike in fixed fees for DNSPs is just one example of how badly broken the Regulatory model is.
It seems to me that the only logical way forward is for the DNSPs to pay a fee or delete any fixed charge for any CHBP GFM/SI BESS owner, on the basis that each CHBP GFM/SI BESS provides technical support for the DNSP Grid asset in meeting the AS IEC 60038 216 V to 253 V standard.
“The central issue is simple, but not small: the electricity system will need to ask for access to consumer-owned storage without making people feel exposed, underpaid or used.”
Geoff, this is another fabulous article … I copied the above sentence (early in the article) as it did not set well with me … why became more apparent as i read through the essay.
… “does system need to ask” is not the right framing … because YES is the only possible answer (though EV OEMs and cabal partners trying to demand that EV owners must {1} ask permission to use their own battery and energy they put in it for #V2H, *and* {2} must ‘agree’ (acquiesce) to allow the “Fat Controller” operate the #V2G opportunity, clearly don’t that fundamental precept! But i digress …
… the far better question is what does the system really need … and how to make that “appear” …
All the aggregation models (are by default, and arguably are corralled by, the current market (and with it system) architecture … exclusively supply side only control.
That, sometime lost, is actually “profit by/through control”!
Consumers just want to save and have (their) value from what they own, and what they spend.
The problem for any business trying to make money (PROFIT) from “energy” (and that is just the energy NOT the transport, and services that DNSPs provide)* are irreconcilably conflicted with consumers who just to SAVE!
* so this where the battleground is (or should be!) DNSPs are regulated for “lowest community cost” (aka NEO) but under the NER are required to make tariffs for FRMPs (and now including DR Aggregators, VPPs etc.) —- but the fact is that DNSPs are agnostic to the value of energy (and should be apathetic to who they serve as long as the regulatory intent (NEO) is met!
What we are seeing though is corruption of opportunities to serve consumers (especially those with CER) and create community outcomes as the primary objective. The “participants” corrupting Ausgrid’s Project Edith Tariffs for their revenue and profit motives over the outcomes for consumers is a developing tragedy!
What we really need is tariffs and frameworks that drive SAVINGS for all consumers BUT especially for those consumers with CER!
The argument that opportunities for CER can (only) come through orchestrated market participants (led by VPPs, AEMO et all) is sophistry at best or outright lies, manipulation, and greed at the worst!
The stranglehold that the big three incumbents have, not just on the consumers they are the FRMP (Financially (IR)Responsible Market Participants) for, but the constraints they bind competitors in … including “undue influence” over tariff reform, and regulatory frameworks … is severely limiting the whole transformation, and ultimately increasing the costs we pay for our energy services by billions (including networks who consumers could make more productive).
It’s the Consumers’ Grid‼️
A link to Tim Ryan's reshare of this post on LinkedIn with ensuring comments here .. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tim-ryan-212b9_batteries-the-grid-does-not-own-activity-7468435087840309248-hgEm
and my own following reshare on LinkedIn .. My own reshare on LinkedIn .. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/geoff-eldridge-nemlog_batteries-the-grid-does-not-own-activity-7468494153002156032-3cSg
Excellent post, Geoff.
As a recent investor/owner of a Rooftop Solar PV system DC-coupled to a CHBP 48kW GFM/SI BESS, I have the satisfaction of understanding:
1. I now earn money from the grid rather than pay a bill by working with a wholesale VPP.
2. My home is protected from the SAPN DNSP weaknesses that result in intermittent brownouts or blackouts through fast UPS level switching to Power Island mode if necessary, with whole-home backup.
3. My GFM/SI BESS provides a Voltage (V) and frequency (f) reference to the SAPN DNSP Grid that strengthens the DNSP grid, helping SAPN meet its obligations to keep its DNSP V within the AS IEC 60038 216 V to 253 V.
I am of the opinion that the Australian Energy Regulatory model is badly broken. The regulators appear to be heavily wed to the old Analog Grid model of operation and are struggling to break out of it as we transition to a Digital Grid model, as evidenced by SA’s 6-layer GFM/SI BESS model.
AEMC’s proposed 5-6x hike in fixed fees for DNSPs is just one example of how badly broken the Regulatory model is.
https://lnkd.in/g2jFuRSp
It seems to me that the only logical way forward is for the DNSPs to pay a fee or delete any fixed charge for any CHBP GFM/SI BESS owner, on the basis that each CHBP GFM/SI BESS provides technical support for the DNSP Grid asset in meeting the AS IEC 60038 216 V to 253 V standard.