Agreed ... you push PW at peak NEM, but also have to pull power from the grid at peak NEM. There are a few golden hours where you are still generating PV, but at that time of the day, it wouldn't be enough to support home loads AND air conditioning. Presumably they will request VPP during heavy usage times (which would be when it is hot AND you need AC). So unless you want to sweat it out from 4-9pm, this cockamamie plan just doesn't work. I bought PV+PW so I could FREE myself from SCE, not become burdened by it again!
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Virtual Power Plant in CA
- Thread starter power.saver
- Start date
I'm tempted to do it. If it's a success, then Tesla can go to CPUC and ask for compensation next year. Wouldn't be the worst thing.
I just looked at tesla's information on their website for this, our of curiosity. As I mentioned earlier, there is no way i would ever give someone else the ability to do this based on what happened to me with a similar program for thermostat control.
Anyway, in there was a blurb about how they may "prioritize solar to charge the powerwalls, if there is an upcoming anticipated vpp event. After powerwall is full, PV will go back to providing power to the home" (paraphrasing).
THAT means that people may be pulling from the grid when they were not expecting to, because the PV that would have been powering their home AND charging their powerwalls might just be charging their powerwalls..
How does anyone looking at this, even from a "green" perspective not have a problem with them basically telling you "we will likely have you use more grid while we force your PV to fully fill your powerwalls instead of both powering your home and filling the powerwalls"?
===============================
www.tesla.com
Anyway, in there was a blurb about how they may "prioritize solar to charge the powerwalls, if there is an upcoming anticipated vpp event. After powerwall is full, PV will go back to providing power to the home" (paraphrasing).
THAT means that people may be pulling from the grid when they were not expecting to, because the PV that would have been powering their home AND charging their powerwalls might just be charging their powerwalls..
How does anyone looking at this, even from a "green" perspective not have a problem with them basically telling you "we will likely have you use more grid while we force your PV to fully fill your powerwalls instead of both powering your home and filling the powerwalls"?
===============================
Tesla Virtual Power Plant With PG&E | Tesla Support
Participate in the Emergency Load Reduction Program (ELRP) pilot offered by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and support the grid while also earning compensation and maintaining your energy security.
ElectricCyclist
Member
I know it is hard for people to have to think about this situation not for themselves but for the environment but with this program we will be improving the environment there is no denying that. The way utilities work is the highest peaks for the day are provided by the most dirty type of peaker power plants in operation. If we can reduce the amount that they need to operate we are saving the environment. Now those peaker plants are also quite expensive to operate so in theory we should be financially compensated as well but this is early times for something like this so I as a Tesla advocate appreciate being on the cutting edge and pioneering additional ways to reduce our carbon footprint. This is just another way that Tesla is leading by their company motto "to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy".
I am not afraid (or ashamed) to say that, while I have a tesla vehicle, tesla solar panels on my roof, AND tesla powerwalls, absolutely none of them were bought as a primary reason "for the environment". For me, the fact that I use less power from the grid and that "helps the environment" is a nice side effect.
I am already "doing my part". My net power usage for the last 3 months has been a negative number, including running my home, including my AC, during peak time completely on my powerwalls.
I somewhat bristle at the idea that I "need to do more" somehow or people saying " do it for the environment", when I am already "doing my part". Its not like I have any issue with people who want to do this, or am judging them in any way, but I also dont particularly care for any insinuations that I (or anyone else) should sign up for this "to do more" " just because".
I am already "doing my part". My net power usage for the last 3 months has been a negative number, including running my home, including my AC, during peak time completely on my powerwalls.
I somewhat bristle at the idea that I "need to do more" somehow or people saying " do it for the environment", when I am already "doing my part". Its not like I have any issue with people who want to do this, or am judging them in any way, but I also dont particularly care for any insinuations that I (or anyone else) should sign up for this "to do more" " just because".
ElectricCyclist
Member
I just looked at tesla's information on their website for this, our of curiosity. As I mentioned earlier, there is no way i would ever give someone else the ability to do this based on what happened to me with a similar program for thermostat control.
Anyway, in there was a blurb about how they may "prioritize solar to charge the powerwalls, if there is an upcoming anticipated vpp event. After powerwall is full, PV will go back to providing power to the home" (paraphrasing).
THAT means that people may be pulling from the grid when they were not expecting to, because the PV that would have been powering their home AND charging their powerwalls might just be charging their powerwalls..
How does anyone looking at this, even from a "green" perspective not have a problem with them basically telling you "we will likely have you use more grid while we force your PV to fully fill your powerwalls instead of both powering your home and filling the powerwalls"?
===============================
Tesla Virtual Power Plant With PG&E | Tesla Support
Participate in the Emergency Load Reduction Program (ELRP) pilot offered by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and support the grid while also earning compensation and maintaining your energy security.
View attachment 687100
I need to comment on this also as your assertion that this would not be green falls back to my previous point. During the times of 4-9PM is where the system demands are the largest and the dirtiest power sources have the ability to come online as they can ramp quickly up and down to meet that peak demand change. If you follow the link this is a typical rate schedule for SCE customers who have EV cars and then participate in a system such as NEM with Solar and or Battery. https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/TOU-D-PRIME Fact Sheet_WCAG (1).pdf
The electricity price that you are paying before 4PM and 9PM is all the same so if an event were to be called that day Tesla would charge up your battery before 4PM which would be at a cheaper rate per kwh to prepare to discharge during that most important 4-9PM window. While discharging you can still use whatever electricity you want in your home and any extra will go back to the grid to help alleviate these dirty generation producers.
All in all to have the most impact on being green overall the 4-9PM window provides the greatest impact and we should be utilizing our storage devices to make that impact and hopefully eventually be compensated such that more people want to participate and increase the impact even more.
Over the course of the day the "more grid" should only be attributable to the round trip losses from charging the Powerwalls. And if the demand for more electricity later in the day is known, then time shifting export from earlier in the day to later in the day is a net good for the grid. Plus it should give you some TOU arbitrage (since normally you can't time shift PV production).
Cheers, Wayne
ElectricCyclist
Member
I hope you are not taking my comments as a way of saying every should participate because I agree with you that this is a personal decision. I just take offense to those who feel as though it is greatly hurting you personally or that this would not be green because that is simply a mistake to think and if reliability and energy safety are high on your mind then this also doesn't make to much sense but I personally hope that enough participate that this provides meaningful evidence to the CAISO to further investigate this and incentivize it in the future.
Another thing I was thinking of is that utilities in CA don't generally let you oversize your installation much to have that much excess generation/storage capacity to help much (SGIP rebate for large installs needed high peak usage for a day I think?).
They want you to be 100-120% use so if you're sitting on 120% panels and maybe 2 powerwalls, on a high energy use day when peaker plants are needed and you export your Powerwall to the grid, at around 6pm (still very hot in CA), there is not a great chance you can last the whole night on batteries.
Once you hit your 'set' level, now you're also a peaker plant user from the grid or maybe other folks with larger battery storage installations can help, but in summary, did you really do anything to help after you hit your set limit since you're now a grid user again?
Unless you have so much storage to completely cover the peak usage, you'll be forced to tap the grid either way so no difference from just using your own batteries. I guess if someone was on vacation with all power use turned off, they can help a bit.
They want you to be 100-120% use so if you're sitting on 120% panels and maybe 2 powerwalls, on a high energy use day when peaker plants are needed and you export your Powerwall to the grid, at around 6pm (still very hot in CA), there is not a great chance you can last the whole night on batteries.
Once you hit your 'set' level, now you're also a peaker plant user from the grid or maybe other folks with larger battery storage installations can help, but in summary, did you really do anything to help after you hit your set limit since you're now a grid user again?
Unless you have so much storage to completely cover the peak usage, you'll be forced to tap the grid either way so no difference from just using your own batteries. I guess if someone was on vacation with all power use turned off, they can help a bit.
If you are in California and your Powerwalls don't cover your Peak usage, you're doing it wrong.
My Peak hours are 4-9pm. By 9pm, I don't need the A/C to be on, just the whole house fan, if I even had either of those things. In the Summer months I have enough solar and PW capacity to run on battery from 3pm-12mid.
My point was if you're in this storage export program and you're exporting your powerwalls at 4-9pm, could your batteries last you till 9pm while you're exporting and using your batteries at the same time.
That all depends on their algorithm. From what I have seen, the Connected Solutions customers in the Northeast typically see a fixed discharge for the event duration. Your usage would be deducted from that and any solar would be added to that to determine what the grid would actually see. If they were smart, they would look at your available storage above the Reserve and discharge at a fixed rate (kW) to to reach the Reserve at the end of the event period.
Whole lot of pearl clutching over pennies in this thread over a feature you have to opt-in to. There's a bigger picture here that a lot of people don't get. Tesla is trying to reimagine energy and that will take time to fully develop. If you don't get it, that's fine. Let those who want to participate figure it out for others to benefit in the future.
Last edited:
Guess I am lucky. I have enough battery that I never need grid during peak, which I set from 3pm to 1am. I need a little grid at this point on my AC batteries, just until solar kicks back in.
We shall see if the 100-120% rule is in stone. Am getting closer to see if my PTO will be approved. And depending on what data one uses, I would be way way above that.
What version of the Powerwall firmware enables the Virtual Power Plant beta?
I have v 3.10.14 of the Android app, v 21.20.2 of the Powerwall firmware and I'm a PG&E customer in NorCal, but I don't have the option.
In case this was already asked/posted, then I apologize in advance about my sub-par search skillz
I have v 3.10.14 of the Android app, v 21.20.2 of the Powerwall firmware and I'm a PG&E customer in NorCal, but I don't have the option.
In case this was already asked/posted, then I apologize in advance about my sub-par search skillz
You are not going to get to charge your batteries from the grid because you have solar. I think you are in a unique situation where you need to be able to grid charge when your solar production is low. Tesla would literally need to reprogram the app to do what you want it to do for a very small number of people that have batteries but did not get an ITC when they got the batteries (SGIP).
Well I will disagree with your opinion. I signed an SGIP agreement that had specific terms and conditions. It did not state that I would join the Tesla VPP program and discharge the batteries at the whim of the VPP. I agreed to sign up for one of 2 available TOU rate plans and to cycle the batteries 52 times per year. In fact on the rate plan that I am on I will end up cycling the batteries far more than 52 times per year. My peak/shoulder pricing is from 1500-2400 and my batteries provide all my usage during that time. That is a benefit to my and to PG&E.
Although you may disagree with giving out free batteries you cannot deny that many people in high risk fire areas did not sign up for a third world electric grid. When I purchased my property 7 years ago, did anyone have any idea that PG&E would start multiple wildfires, burn down towns, and decide to just shut peoples power off for days at a time? No.
They could have saved a bunch of money and put in a bunch of backup generators at all the home affected by PSPS events. They chose to put in these batteries. Why you might ask? Because it has a benefit to the utility and the customer. Customers load shift, utility can count on that over time because if the customer does not load shift they could lose their rebate and they will pay nearly .50c/kwh over the peak in the summer.
If you want to dedicate your powerwall's to Tesla VPP project feel free, I have some load shifting to do.
Last edited:
I do not think this is accurate that Tesla would need to reprogram the app. Individuals in other countries, and a very limited (possibly as low as one who reported their experience on this site) number of individuals in the US do have grid charging with solar. The point being it is a configuration setting that disables this functionality rather than missing functionality. Why Tesla chooses not to make this option available in the US has been discussed at length, but the general belief has been some combination of the ITC and the patchwork of state/local/utility regulations, some of which might prohibit or have other rules around grid charging combined with solar/NEM. It also seems consistent with Tesla to keep things simple - fewer options - so it has been easier for them to just set a blanket rule for the US.
Balancing the power grid today works off a market based approach for the majority of balancing, that is maintaining 60hz. Dispatches are sent to specific units and they are told to raise or lower their output based on bids that they have in the market, and the current state of demand in the market. That is how it works in a very very simplified way. It is massively more complex than that.
If Tesla is going to add a VPP to CAISO it will be putting in bids and getting capacity payments and energy payments if it is going to be dispatchable (ie. usable to grid operators on demand) If they have some dope deal to bring the VPP output up to maximum outside of the market, that would most likely take a phone call and have a dispatch period of time, say 1-3 hours. For a grid with 45,000 MW of load at the peak, the 250/MW of Max VPP power is not going to make much of a difference.
I used to run the balancing desk at the CAISO.
If Tesla is going to add a VPP to CAISO it will be putting in bids and getting capacity payments and energy payments if it is going to be dispatchable (ie. usable to grid operators on demand) If they have some dope deal to bring the VPP output up to maximum outside of the market, that would most likely take a phone call and have a dispatch period of time, say 1-3 hours. For a grid with 45,000 MW of load at the peak, the 250/MW of Max VPP power is not going to make much of a difference.
I used to run the balancing desk at the CAISO.
IMO, this is why Tesla does not want individuals to go "off grid" !! If this were allowed to happen, then Tesla would not get their 'cut' of the graft going to PG&E ! This is not a good deal for the consumer, and a windfall for the utility and Tesla.
"Tesla" doesnt care at all if anyone goes off grid. Those are local Utility rules, not Tesla rules.
Similar threads
