IMO, I think stuff like this after-install patch is more harmful than helpful. Maybe the homeowner gets a benefit, but all those other people that like to put their nose into the business of residential energy will interpret this as a lack of control. And the moment people don't understand where something can go, they assume the absolute worst possible scenario will happen.
Tesla is treating the Powerwall like their vehicles. But the vehicles are generally only regulated at the federal and marginally at the state level for emissions and "safe operation" through the easiest licensing exam. Insurance companies and banks have some input; but only indirectly with how they set rates related to the vehicles. The Department of Transportation rules are fairly static, with changes being communicated to automakers years in advance. And, the enforcement of the rules typically sits at the macro level with standard testing, registration, etc. Because if this, Tesla can push software updates to individual vehicles with impunity so long as they doesn't run afoul with the regulator's view of the safety and efficiency of the vehicle. This gives Tesla a wide range of options for software upgrades with the most significant pinch point coming from that FSD since it's less well understood.
It's why when you go get a car, you only need to show a driver's license. A city or county cannot determine your particular car is unsafe because maybe you put too much cargo in the back and your tire pressure is too low unless the issue is so obvious that an onlooker believes something to be wrong.
But contrast that with Powerwall installations which are regulated at the federal, state, county, local, and the power companies have a huge administrative burden involved with them. And enforcement comes from all manner of patchwork stakeholders. The worst part is, instead of looking for gross violations, the AHJs nit pick on every single possible tiny thing like the torque spec of racking bolts and the perfect setback distance from a ridge. And even the NEC rules seem inconsistently enforced due to the rate of adoption and unique local interpretations of the federal guidelines.
At the local level of permitting, Vines points out this thing with the installed breaker sizes being possibly inadequate. Home construction likes things to be static and permanent with any marginal changes going back for more permitting. You want to add a new Tesla charger? Permit. You want to add a new battery? Permit. You want to change how the generation sources backfeed a system? Permit.
And there are other issues like the PG&E considering the export amperage of the batteries for the 120% rule in certain designs... or their interconnection agreement being tiered based on the "export size in kW" of the battery. These stakeholders all have their own interpretation of what is "safe" and "acceptable".
We've seen countless times on this forum that the local AHJs want to enforce bollards, heat sensors, insulated grounding rods, neutrals not being bonded to ground except at the main, etc etc etc. If these AHJS cannot trust the ESS to behave as permitted, then they're going to assume the worst. But unlike cars, their assumption of the worst in a home is much more invasive than a worst-case in a car. Which is ironic since a car moving at 70mph on autopilot is much less safe compared to a house sitting there with a breaker that is rated 10A too low for the Powerwall.
