California wants to use electric cars to back up the power grid

[OneCrazyDiamond]

https://www.vox.com/recode/22969335/california-gm-electric-cars-power-grid-batteries-blackouts

General Motors and Pacific Gas and Electric this week announced a joint pilot program to test ways GM’s electric vehicles could help the California utility’s customers keep the lights on, either by providing backup power to homes during blackouts or feeding energy back into the grid when demand is especially high. It’s a significant step towards enabling EVs to become big batteries on wheels.

The idea behind the pilot is deceptively simple: An EV owner plugs their car into a charger at home, and instead of electricity simply flowing into the car’s battery, electricity can also flow out of it to provide power to buildings — a concept called “vehicle-to-grid,” which essentially makes the car an extension of the power grid itself.

The most basic version of this idea entails temporarily cutting off a house from the power grid during a blackout so that the car can provide backup power; at a more advanced level, a collection of EVs working together can act like a large backup battery for the grid at large. In most of the country, the power grid isn’t set up for something like this (simply put, the car and the grid don’t know how to talk to each other). But with climate change hammering the aging American power grid, the PG&E pilot is a sign that utilities are starting to think creatively about potential solutions.


This might incentivize EVs, and help kill those portable generators people bought to deal with PG&E cutting power when there is a fire risk.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. This is an important concept, and I hope to see it come to pass. n/t

[wendyb-NC]

2. Great idea

This makes so much sense.

Wonder if solar could be part of this, too? For example, Cars that are parked on the asphalt parking lots with a minimum of shade to speak of, in the hot blazing sun for 1-8 hours a day. That might be too complicated to start with, but with time, kinks worked out, I think it would be possible.

[TheRealNorth]

3. While I think that's a neat concept for times when the power goes out during emergencies....

That doesn't seem like a sound energy policy. Best to have redundancies built into your electric grid.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Huh? You charge your car from the grid and then give the juice...

back to the grid?

Could work, but sounds like tricky timing.

[usonian]

5. This is very ambitious but worth pursuing.

Last edited Fri Mar 11, 2022, 09:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Edit: Ford is in the mix, with the F-150 Lightning.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220311005458/en/PGE-and-Ford-Collaborate-on-Bidirectional-Electric-Vehicle-Charging-Technology-in-Customers’-Homes

Today, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Ford Motor Company announced a collaboration exploring how Ford’s new F-150 Lightning electric vehicle (EV)—the first commercially available light-duty truck with bidirectional charging technology—can interact with the electric grid and provide electric reliability benefits to PG&E customers.

And there are obstacles.

I was thinking of CPUC wanting to change the "net metering provisions that let consumers sell solar back to the grid"

The supposed argument is that non-solar users are subsidizing "rich folks" who have solar.

I, for one, am glad to pay a bit more for solar to reach a tipping point.

https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/cpuc-delays-action-controversial-rooftop-solar-rate-change
CPUC DELAYS ACTION ON CONTROVERSIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR RATE CHANGE

January 21, 2022 (San Diego) – The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) unveiled a proposal on December 13 that would take away most financial incentives for homeowners or businesses to install solar power. But after backlash from outraged consumers and elected officials, the CPUC has postponed action.

The item was slated to be heard on January 27, but is not on the agenda, with changes likely.

The proposal, if adopted in its current form, would gut net metering provisions that let consumers sell solar back to the grid. It would cut by 80% the amount residents are paid for electricity generated from rooftop solar panels. It would also require hefty grid access charges of around $60 a month for an average solar customer.

The plan would apply to new solar customers. But solar advocates say it would remove incentives to go solar at a time when California aggressively seeks to encourage clean energy alternatives to slow climate change.

“The proposal will move us backward on clean energy and block many Californians’ ability to help make our grid more resilient to climate change,” says Susannah Churchill, western senior regional director for the political advocacy group Vote Solar, Associated Press (AP) reports.

Conservative and liberal politicians are both voicing opposition to the CPUC plan.

“The proposed changes would make it more expensive for people who want to go green by adding solar to the roofs of their homes and businesses. In fact, it is estimated that the new rules would cost a typical, solar rooftop-owning customer in the SDG&E service area just under $1,300 a year in new fees and higher rates,” Supervisor Joel Anderson, who represents many East County communities, wrote in an e-mail to constituents.

Anderson, a Republican, launched a petition that quickly gained 1,700 signatures opposing the CPUC proposal, which he calls a “bait and switch to people who invested in solar panels” that would discourage people from installing solar.

Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, told reporters when asked about the solar rate change plan during a budget press conference that he reviewed it and believes there is more work needed. “Do I think that changes need to be made? Yes, I do,” the Governor said.

The utility industry argues that solar customers aren’t paying their fair share for grid maintenance. Industry surrogate groups have launched ads on social media to push their views. One such group called Fix the Cost Shift has an ad on Facebook that states, “A flaw in state law is forcing Californians who can’t afford rooftop solar to subsidize wealthier homeowners who can. Seniors and families struggling to pay hundreds more each year in higher energy bills. Fix this unfair cost shift.”

But solar energy supporters contend that utilities are the ones motivated by greed, KPBS reports.

Greed? Hard to believe.
I emailed the governor early and often about this.

That said, it's worth exploring.

At the very least, it would power homes when the grid shuts off. (The Ford F-150 Lightning is supposed to do this with optional equipment) but the engineer in me says that when the grid is down, (let's say one of a billion trees knocks out a line) then feeding power into said grid is pointless unless there's also a microgrid infrastructure so that power can be shared up to the point of the break, and power companies have to then deal with live lines past the break.

Devil is in the details.
But we have the ingenuity to work the issues. (in CA)

[ificandream]

6. I thought about buying one, but ...

A couple of things are keeping me away. One is the cost of keeping the car charged. Not to mention the cost of the car. (No way am I getting a Tesla.) Someone in my neighborhood told me his PG&E bill went up enormously after he got an EV. Another is the rash of thefts of catalytic converters. If I did buy one, I'd obviously get a lock to put on them. And from what I understand, it takes a long time to charge them.

So yeah, at least for now, I'm not considering it. I'd love to get one. I really would.