Hi: Thanks for the reply:
In order: First.
"That's all that PPL was asking for. You seem to be outraged that it was an additional burden. But the features are already there in most inverter products. It's like buying a cell phone to make phone calls then finding out they can also send texts and take photos. What the lawsuit and resolution lays out is a very interesting study to compare coordinated control vs autonomous (non-centralized control). "
I know that the feature's are already there via adherence to various IEEE specs. MY point is that, for them, that IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. You as an inverter manufacturer have to submit your inverters, model by model, and pay them to be tested to be allowed use in their jurisdiction. If the already IEEE standards that they adhere to, was good enough for them, my objections would not have materialized.
I stated this in this section, "But PPL managed to go a step further and convince the mentioned "parties" that just meeting all these rigorous specifications (Most of them out of California) wasn't enough. They must bare the additional "load" and meet PPL's specs for their connectivity to their DER (Distributed Energy Resource) device, otherwise a customer will not be allowed to put a system in their utility territory. "
You think every inverter manufacturer is going to do this, for every SEPARATE utility in the country?? You think all these dozens and dozens of utilities are all going to demand exactly the same thing? By your own words, they don't.
So the end result to the consumer is less buying choice for their systems, even if the models have ALL the IEEE specs, and as a company they make great products. AS I said, PAY TO PLAY, which cuts free competition and implementation rates rise for RE. It slows down their demand destruction. Helps to save their bottom line....
Next:
"I feel it is inevitable that we are heading this way. It is a good thing! It will enable far more residential to be installed and homeowners will either be paid for allowing their inverter to participate in a grid control program or it will open up vast amounts of currently off-limit feeders to allow existing customers to finally install PV. "
Well, there in lies the difference between theory and reality. It drives up costs and limits choice.
Lets say for one second, we did not have Distributed RE. Set the "way back" machine to 40 years ago. Now, all the increased load to come must be satisfied by the utilities. ALL OF IT! WOW!! think of all the extra revenue they would have!! AND, if they need to put HV lines in everybody's front yard, they can just use Eminent Domain to shove it up everyone's A$$, (Ref: NIMBY) To bad so sad. Move if you don't like it.
Additionally, they would have to bear all these production costs, as loads became more diversified and larger and larger. DER may be a new horse in the barn, but it is one that ultimately saves them a boat load of money, which is why they started it in the VERY beginning, saving THEM grid provider fees per KWH during peak loadings.
I hate to say this because it is really almost a cliché. Opinions out of academia are not grounded in the real world of experience. And I mean the FULL cradle to grave connections from solution thought to customer end experience, not just the narrow silo of a lab, or Oppenheimer's play ground for world betterment.
AS for the DOE and my experience with them, I am going to leave that alone here...
RE for everybody is where we need to get to. Its just not everyone, in TRUTH, wants this. Profit first.
And to be very clear here, I am not against knowledge acquisition, learning, teaching (Love it actually) or academia. What I am against is siloed thinking in the pursuit of knowledge, the same pursuit that has us sitting at 90 seconds to mid-night. Intelligent people that lack the ability to see connections out side their own little mental processes, and quests of grandeur and societal fame, which often their personality types leave them wanting for such.
------------------------------
william fitch
Owner
www.WeAreSolar.com
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-07-2024 02:12 PM
From: Steven Hegedus
Subject: "I Fronius."
Hello Bill,
I wanted to comment on your complaint about utilities requiring inverters to have additional features, specifically Penn Power and Light (PPL). I also read your blog from 2021 diving deeper into your opposition. The issue is centralized or coordinated control of smart inverter features vs allowing them to operate autonomously with their preprogrammed grid support features. This is something I have studied for the past 5 years under a DOE contract and have tested both modes of grid support in my lab at University of Delaware. My students and I have published or submitted for review a few papers in this area with industry partners. There a number of finer points you may be missing.
First what is being discussed is the ability of smart inverters to provide grid support function like Volt-VAR or Volt-Watt or Freq-Watt to help stabilize the voltage or frequency. And especially the ability to communicate with them remotely. It does not change the basic DC-AC power conversion feature of the inverter. Any inverter made after about 2021 or so will have these features available but unless the state or utility has requested that they be activated, most installers leave them turned off. Some inverter manufacturers only allow installers to activate the controls or remote communication. So once installed it is unlikely a customer will know about them or request them to be activated. That means a lot of capability to increase solar installations on off-limit distribution feeders or to the grid is wasted. In my little state of DE all three utilities have varying amounts of feeders that are off limit for even a single new residential PV system due to constraints. Remember, our grid was not designed for hundreds or thousands of unsupervised DERS like rooftop solar! Many states are adopting IEEE 1547-2018 which would require inverters (and EV chargers or other DER) connecting to the grid on the custormer side of the meter to have these grid support functions enabled. That's all that PPL was asking for. You seem to be outraged that it was an additional burden. But the features are already there in most inverter products. It's like buying a cell phone to make phone calls then finding out they can also send texts and take photos. What the lawsuit and resolution lays out is a very interesting study to compare coordinated control vs autonomous (non-centralized control).
Why does this matter? Several studies have shown that a utility can greatly increase the hosting capacity HC (ie. how much more solar can be added relative to the peak load or carrying capacity) of a distribution feeder by implementing these grid support functions. Without them activated, maybe the HC might 5-10%. With autonomous controls (like Volt-VAR or even just constant power factor PF=0.96-0.98) HC can increase to 50-100%. With coordinated control it can exceed 150%. The reason why Volt-VAR is most valuable is because it allows the inverter to inject or absorb reactive power to push the voltage down or up as needed to keep it within the allowed range.THIS MEANS ALOT MORE SOLAR ON ROOFTOPS!
In order for the utilities to communicate with each inverter they need a DER management system (DERMS). They are expensive and complex and require connections on the customer side of the meter. This is similar to the very common and decades old utility activited water heater or air conditioner shut-off switch for Demand Side Management or Load Control for summer peak reduction. The difference is the communication protocols are more sophisticated than just ON-OFF like a water heater.
I feel it is inevitable that we are heading this way. It is a good thing! It will enable far more residential to be installed and homeowners will either be paid for allowing their inverter to participate in a grid control program or it will open up vast amounts of currently off-limit feeders to allow existing customers to finally install PV.
Steve
------------------------------
Steven Hegedus
Professor and Senior Scientist
University of Delaware
Newark Delaware
Original Message:
Sent: 04-23-2024 12:27 PM
From: william fitch
Subject: "I Fronius."
This whole that follows, was triggered by Ella's Fronius reference fire article below.
I have a Fronius string inverter. Its an 11.5KW single phase unit. I really like their products. However, the DER program that PPL was able to get the PUC and related "bodies" to sign off on, requires extra burden by any of the inverter manufactures to pay to get their products certified by PPL in order for them to be used anywhere in their territory. I installed my Fronius before this program was implemented. To be clear, all the ANSI and other standards that all these manufactures have to get, to make sure their inverter products meet the current specifications for a huge quantity of requirements to be able to even sell in the market place as a grid tie product, is no small challenge.
But PPL managed to go a step further and convince the mentioned "parties" that just meeting all these rigorous specifications (Most of them out of California) wasn't enough. They must bare the additional "load" and meet PPL's specs for their connectivity to their DER (Distributed Energy Resource) device, otherwise a customer will not be allowed to put a system in their utility territory. SO like the Hollywood movie, Hot Nightclub waiting line scene, if your name is not on the list (Night AT The Roxbury), too bad so sad.
From my perspective, this is egregious private interest BS. The reason all these rigorous standards exist, is to have safe products that meet a common set of standards across the boards, for reasonable engineering expectations regarding function and safety. If a singular entity wishes to demand more, because there is something they wish to accomplish, all the burden should be on them to test connectivity to THEIR device, not the all ready heavily taxed manufacturing entities who already comply with very strict standards.
This only serves to restrict product availability for implementing PV systems. Fronius has zero products available that are on PPL's DER list. The below URL is the current allowed list.
https://www.pplelectric.com/-/media/PPLElectric/At-Your-Service/Docs/REMSI/Metering-Equipment-Tables/PPL-EU-Smart-Inverter-List.ashx
Yet the company has a really well established versatile line of great string inverters.
There are so many great, established inverter products out there that an installer or end customer can not use, because of these restrictions.
This I view as another example of monopolistic Capitalism, using an excuse such as, its for the greater good of RE and distributed energy systems, to really satisfy the slowing of the demand destruction cliff approaching, for all these regulated monopolies.
Anyone have any thoughts or personal experience with these types of agendas?
I first expressed my feelings regarding this, in an article I wrote back in October of 2021, referenced below, though this was not Fronius referenced at the time.
https://fcfcfcwearesolar.blogspot.com/2021/10/balancing-load.html
------------------------------
william fitch
Owner
www.WeAreSolar.com
------------------------------