Welcome to the new Home Performance Forum.

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Comments

  • David ButlerDavid Butler Posts: 3,838
    $15/mo is a lot better than $37.50/mo in the earlier GMP trial. According to Tesla's website, PowerWall 2, which has 14kWh capacity, costs between $7k and $8k installed, so $15/mo (or $1500 up front) requires one hell of a subsidy! Thus, your discussion title.

    My understanding is that the original Powerwall cannot be integrated with an existing PV system in off-grid mode, such as during an outage. I wonder if this has this has been resolved with PW2. At least there should be a way to do this in a new installation.
  • Edward WhitakerEdward Whitaker Posts: 286
    I agree with your comments completely -- Thus the discussion title.
    Obviously the value to the entire customer base is there, otherwise, we would see a higher cost (like 37.50/month). To me, it looks like they have placed a value on backup power rather than placing the value on the battery itself ( not unlike buying a generator and making payments). If that's the case then it's reasonable to assume the value to the utility is at or near the cost of the battery. Carry those theories to the next level and it would project a picture of widespread deployment where the value to the consumer base is very large. Interesting that this potential value was discussed here over the last couple of years (??) and basically ruled out due to cost.

    I don't know how this battery can be configured/operated in regards to residential PV. I would assume that any current deficiencies will be addressed in future versions of the battery to make it highly flexible.
  • David ButlerDavid Butler Posts: 3,838
    When this topic came up in the LinkedIn group in years past, any comments I made about lack of cost rationale were (and still are) strictly from the homeowner's perspective -- not the utility, the rate base, or society at large. It's up to the utility, regulators and legislators to consider macro-benefits. To the extent the customer can or should contribute toward those ends, appropriate price signals (and marketing lipstick) must be established.

    The technology required to integrate distributed storage (as well as integrate distributed storage with on-site renewable power sources) is so new that it makes sense for the utility to develop and market a complete solution, as GMP appears to be doing. As these systems mature, I would hope that utilities would back away and rely instead on innovations in rate design to incentivize 3rd-party providers to compete in that space, direct to consumer.
  • Edward WhitakerEdward Whitaker Posts: 286
    David, I wasn't spotlighting anybody's past comments, I was instead pointing out that those discussions covered beliefs that there was a larger societal benefit and untapped value streams.

    Not sure how the third party provider scenario will play out with GMP, their previous mini-split program gave incentives for product 3rd party purchase while GMP provided utility lease options. I would suspect (as you point out) that the innovative nature of these battery programs requires the utility to keep everything in-house for now. As consumer owned energy generation builds out and utility revenue gets squeezed, I would expect more product and "service for fee" models adopted by utilities to compensate the reduced electrical sales.
Sign In or Register to comment.