Question on California UL rating requirement for SMA / effective April 1st 2023

[solardreamer]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd think the equipment lists (which have existed in some form for as long as I've known about them - since about 2004 or before) are more about ensuring equipment meets some recognized standards rather than controlling the flow of power to the grid as an end in itself.

The standards (IEEE 1547, UL 1741) were developed to ensure grid safety and stability with distributed energy resources including home solar. Since too much solar power feeding the grid can create instability the standards cover ways to control power flow. So, power flow to the grid is a key concern for the standards.

[bcroe]

Lucky that you aren't in the state of CA. Although I see some rough weather coming your way. Stay safe.

It is not luck that I do not live in CA, I have a long list. IL did get
some weather, 1 fatality so far, many years there are no tornado
fatalities. This is nothing like places hit with hurricanes, forest fires,
more. We had a lot more tree damage weeks ago from the ice
storm, still collecting those here.

I have suggested CA could solve their energy problem by controlling
all the pool pumps and AC, very little of that here. Best not to throw
away available energy. But all these things are bandaids, the real
issue is the ever increasing population, with a lot of them better
educated and wanting their share of the best. When that levels
off there is a chance for some stability in resource use. Bruce Roe

[SunEagle]

The standards (IEEE 1547, UL 1741) were developed to ensure grid safety and stability with distributed energy resources including home solar. Since too much solar power feeding the grid can create instability the standards cover ways to control power flow. So, power flow to the grid is a key concern for the standards.

So my question is why aren't the POCO's spending the money to reinforce the grid so it can handle influx from co-generators. It seems they are forcing the cost onto the customers

[J.P.M.]

So my question is why aren't the POCO's spending the money to reinforce the grid so it can handle influx from co-generators. It seems they are forcing the cost onto the customers

I believe you just answered your own question.

[jflorey2]

I take that to mean, they can choose to shut you down anytime.

Agreed. But given that they can do that right now, it's not a huge change.

And in markets like Hawaii, this will allow more solar to be installed. Standard grid tied inverters are currently banned in many places there, since solar installations are in danger of overloading distribution systems.

[jflorey2]

Good to know that a lot of existing inverters will comply. I just am worried the POCO's and local government may try to use homes as co-generators when the state can't generate enough due to them closing down power stations.

?? They are doing that right now. All that generation that is missing in the duck curve is from individual solar generators (i.e. not large facilities that CAL-ISO tracks.) And they absolutely shut down power stations when there is enough generation from solar - which is a good thing. Lower natural gas use, less pollution, lower natural gas prices.

[jflorey2]

I have suggested CA could solve their energy problem by controlling all the pool pumps and AC, very little of that here.

Yep, and that's called DR (demand response.) But if you think people will get upset when they curtail solar generation, imagine how upset they'd get if the state curtailed air conditioning.

[SunEagle]

?? They are doing that right now. All that generation that is missing in the duck curve is from individual solar generators (i.e. not large facilities that CAL-ISO tracks.) And they absolutely shut down power stations when there is enough generation from solar - which is a good thing. Lower natural gas use, less pollution, lower natural gas prices.

So what about the poor people that live in apartments and can't afford solar. Are they benefiting or just paying higher electric rates to cover the cost that the POCO's don't want to spend?

I really wish those people that can afford solar and EV's to get their heads out of their asses so they really understand the cost of a state going over to all green generation and lower gas usage.

Most reasons you get less population is due to people moving out of the expensive states into other lower cost ones. As for natural gas all I see is higher rates due to less production due to shutting down the fracking. But that is just my opinion and others may have different ones.

[Mike 134]

Yep, and that's called DR (demand response.) But if you think people will get upset when they curtail solar generation, imagine how upset they'd get if the state curtailed air conditioning.

My utility has that very program in place now to curtail AC use. It's voluntary.
Central AC Cycling | ComEd - An Exelon Company

[bcroe]

Agreed. But given that they can do that right now, it's not a huge change.

And in markets like Hawaii, this will allow more solar to be installed. Standard grid tied inverters are currently banned in many places there, since solar installations are in danger of overloading distribution systems.

The PoCos have no interest in promoting private solar.
Yes they would like to be able to modulate it on and off
like another generating station. This would be to their
benefit, but certainly not to the benefit of private solar.
The private owner wants to justify the PV investment by
getting the most energy from it possible.

Here there is no contract or equipment to allow the PoCo
to shut down private solar. Hawaii has demonstrated how
this can lead to de stablizing the grid. My idea of eliminating
my home energy purchases seemed like a green idea 10
years ago. But now it is running into large scale practical
limitations. It appears the final answer is more Nuke, but
I am not anxious to go back to being abused by the energy
suppliers.

I would not have much problem with AC control hours,
a home with large thermal inertia is possible. I see a
couple problems, matching the load over a day, and over
a year.

As for natural gas, I read that 2/3 of US consumption goes
to industry, only 15% to home owners. So maybe we should
work harder at runing industry from Nuke, and let the home
consumers keep gas. A little like cars, we have hugely
reduced emissions, but they continue to be attacked.
Meanwhile industry, shipping, and so on are the largest
emitters. Bruce Roe

[Calsun]

The new regulations were pushed through by the three major utility companies and they run the electrical grid in California. The PUC is very much a captive agency. When Governor Gray Davis tried to go after the $4 billion stolen by Enron the company simply financed a recall campaign and got him removed from office. And this is hardly unique to California with states like Nevada and Utah and Arizona and Florida that are pushing anti-solar legislation to curtail private individuals from adding roof top solar.

I view California as the least bad state in the country when you look at the economy and the health statistics like maternal mortality and infant mortality where most states have rates that are 10 times that of Australia. There are problems with the big agricultural companies that take 85% of the water but contribute less than 3% of the states GDP. But similar situations exist in coal country and oil states with unregulated fracking and water pollution.

[jflorey2]

The PoCos have no interest in promoting private solar.
Yes they would like to be able to modulate it on and off
like another generating station. This would be to their
benefit, but certainly not to the benefit of private solar.
The private owner wants to justify the PV investment by
getting the most energy from it possible.

That's exactly right, and that's why PUC's are so important. They tell utilities "you have to allow solar." Often they make good decisions. In this case they didn't.

Here there is no contract or equipment to allow the PoCo
to shut down private solar.

Inverters are being designed, more and more often, to the later versions of Rule 21 - which gives them the ability to do so. Whether they avail themselves of that is up to the PUC.

Hawaii has demonstrated how
this can lead to de stablizing the grid.

No, it stabilizes the grid. (And yes I have no doubt that someone could screw up and use it to DEstabilize the grid, for example, curtail production when demand is high.)

When I wear my homeowner hat I want to be able to export every watt I can.
When I wear a theoretical utility-stockholder hat I would want to be able to shut down every solar power system I could.
But if I wore a CAL-ISO hat I'd want the ability to curtail during times that 100% of our production came from solar and wind, and no more could be accommodated without crashing the grid. (And we are very close to that - there have been days where renewables are providing 100% of our power.)

That's the dilemma.

It appears the final answer is more Nuke

Nuke is awesome for base load power. But it's also, by far, the most expensive energy source we have, and it's not good at load following. So more than 20-30% can be counterproductive.

[jflorey2]

So what about the poor people that live in apartments and can't afford solar. Are they benefiting or just paying higher electric rates to cover the cost that the POCO's don't want to spend?

They are paying higher rates - and breathing cleaner air. Nothing is free.

I really wish those people that can afford solar and EV's to get their heads out of their asses so they really understand the cost of a state going over to all green generation and lower gas usage.

And I wish that people who think climate change and public health problems from coal generation are Chinese plots would get their heads out of their asses, too. But I have a feeling neither will happen.

Most reasons you get less population is due to people moving out of the expensive states into other lower cost ones.

I keep hoping that will happen. Less traffic, lower real estate prices, lower energy prices. And the people who would really rather be somewhere else - go somewhere else. Sounds like a win-win.

A friend of mine just moved to Texas. He hates it there, but had to go because of work.
We just hired two people from Texas. And they love it here but they also regularly complain about all the ways California isn't Texas. Which, I figure, is human nature.

[brycenesbitt]

Nuke is awesome for base load power. But it's also, by far, the most expensive energy source we have, and it's not good at load following. So more than 20-30% can be counterproductive.

France does Nuclear for a far higher percentage, but at the cost of leaving expensive nuclear plants idling.
Pumped storage, and future utility scale batteries are increasingly being used to keep baseline load generation online.

[SunEagle]

They are paying higher rates - and breathing cleaner air. Nothing is free.


And I wish that people who think climate change and public health problems from coal generation are Chinese plots would get their heads out of their asses, too. But I have a feeling neither will happen.


I keep hoping that will happen. Less traffic, lower real estate prices, lower energy prices. And the people who would really rather be somewhere else - go somewhere else. Sounds like a win-win.

A friend of mine just moved to Texas. He hates it there, but had to go because of work.
We just hired two people from Texas. And they love it here but they also regularly complain about all the ways California isn't Texas. Which, I figure, is human nature.

Wow. I guess we have different views of where people should live. Maybe CA is lucky that you are still in place as opposed to sliding into the pacific ocean due to earthquakes. My bad did I say that out loud.

If you chose to live the way you are then I would hope you and others stop complaining when their electric costs sky rocket.

Oh and we get people from NY that complain Florida is not the same as where they use to live but they did move from there for some reason.