California Successfully Tests 'Virtual Power Plant', Drawing Power From Batteries in 100,000 Homes (yahoo.com)
- Reference: 0178621716
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/25/08/09/0446221/california-successfully-tests-virtual-power-plant-drawing-power-from-batteries-in-100000-homes
- Source link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/california-finding-way-around-trump-120549680.html
> [2]Pacific Gas & Electric and other top California power companies switched on residential batteries in more than 100,000 homes and drew power from them into the broader statewide grid. The purpose of the test — the largest ever in the state, which has by far the most home battery capacity in the U.S. — was to see just how much power is really there for the utility to tap, and to ensure it could be switched on, effectively running the grid in reverse, without causing a crash.
>
> The result, which the research firm Brattle [3]published this week , was 535 megawatts, equal to adding a big hydro dam or a half-sized nuclear reactor at a fraction of the cost. "Four years ago this capacity didn't even exist," Kendrick Li, PG&E's director of clean energy programs, told Semafor. "Now it's a really attractive option for us. It would be silly not to harness what our customers have installed...." Last week's test proved that in times of peak demand, PG&E can lean on its customers' batteries rather than turn on a gas-fired peaker plant or risk a blackout, Li said.
>
> Virtual power plants (VPPs) also facilitate the addition of more solar energy on the grid: At the moment, California has so much solar generation at peak hours that it can push the wholesale power price close to or even below zero, a headache for grid managers and a disincentive for renewable project developers. The careful manipulation of networked residential batteries smooths out the timing disparity between peak sunshine at midday and peak demand in the evening, allowing the excess to be soaked up and redeployed when it's actually needed, and making power cheaper for everyone. The expanded use of VPPs shouldn't be noticeable to battery owners, Li said, except for the money back on their power bill; nothing about the process prevents them from running their AC or dishwasher while their battery is being tapped. The network can also run in reverse, with the utility taking excess power from the grid at times of low demand and sending it into home batteries for storage.
>
> California could easily reach over a gigawatt of VPP capacity within five years, Li said. Nationwide, a Department of Energy study during the Biden administration forecast that VPP capacity could reach up to 160 gigawatts by 2030, essentially negating the need for dozens of new fossil fuel power plants, with no emissions and at a far lower cost. In 2024, utilities in 34 states moved to initiate or expand VPP networks, according to the advocacy group VP3.
Even with a reduction in federal credits, virtual power plants "offer a way for residential solar-plus-storage systems to remain economically attractive for homeowners — who get paid for the withdrawn power," the article points out — and "a way to make better use of clean energy resources that have already been built."
Sunrun's distributed battery fleet "delivered more than two-thirds of the energy," [4]notes Electrek , "In total, the event pumped an average of 535 megawatts (MW) onto the grid — enough to power over half of San Francisco... This isn't a one-off. Sunrun's fleet already helped drop peak demand earlier this summer, delivering 325 MW during a similar event on June 24.
"The company compensates customers up to $150 per battery per season for participating."
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/california-finding-way-around-trump-120549680.html
[2] https://www.pge.com/en/newsroom/currents/future-of-energy/power-to-the-people--california-s-biggest-battery-test-ever-just.html
[3] https://www.brattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Assessing-VPP-Performance-Impacts-of-a-Test-Event-in-California-1.pdf
[4] https://electrek.co/2025/08/04/california-grid-gets-a-record-power-assist-from-a-100k-home-battery-fleet/
$150 per SEASON? (Score:2)
The power companies are clearly profiting from that - they are charging for more for what they take. Instead, they should be giving homeowners full credit on their bill at the same rate as they themselves charge. The homeowner is the one who invested in that infrastructure, NOT the power company.
Re: (Score:1)
The real problem is that electricity prices arenâ(TM)t based on the actual cost of delivering it. To match costs, the fixed infrastructure fee (just for having the hookup) would need to be much higher, while the price per kWh would be lower. But if that happened, demand would increase, environmentalists would object, and low-income households would struggle to pay their bills.
Without restructuring pricing, the real cost of having the hookup stays hidden. This keeps the per-kWh price artificially high
Re: (Score:2)
> The power companies are clearly profiting from that - they are charging for more for what they take. Instead, they should be giving homeowners full credit on their bill at the same rate as they themselves charge. The homeowner is the one who invested in that infrastructure, NOT the power company.
This is the big issue. Who owns the batteries (i.e., who gets to control the batteries), and who owns the energy in the batteries. It seems like for the $150 per season, PG&E owns the energy. They "allow" the battery owner to use the energy in their own home, but PG&E gets to pull whatever energy they want.
I wonder if PG&E charges the batteries during the day, and the home owner uses that energy in the evening (say to charge a car), is that energy free?
Whether $150 is worthwhile depends on th
Re: (Score:2)
> I sure hope homeowners are charging CA a base rate that covers the cost of their wiring, and propery.
Don't forget administrative fees!
Was it voluntary? (Score:2)
If yes, will it remain voluntary? Yeah, I doubt it too.
Who sets the return power price? Could homeowners unionize and sell power back at their price and not that set by an outside entity?
Re: (Score:2)
If the infrastructure is there to support it then it should in fact not be voluntary, it should be part of the agreement when you are hooked to the grid, it's kind a baked into the concept of a power grid.
The rate should be set by the state that is fair to everyone involved. This should be a "good for everyone" situation if it's actually regulated and supported correctly.
Re: Was it voluntary? (Score:2)
> fair to everyone involved.
Including the ghosts of Enron?
net metering 3.0 (Score:2)
With Net Metering 3.0, the power company can go fuck itself. SCE wants to use power from my batteries? Okay its $1000 per kilo-watt, plus fees I have yet to determine or calculate. Oh, and it goes up 35% every 6 months.
Megawatt-hours (Score:2)
> 535 megawatts,
How many megawatt-hours? It might be half a nuke in terms of power, but that nuke can run continuously for weeks, months.
I think it's an interesting test from a capablity point of view. But it doesn't provide enough info to demonstrate the viability of home storage to bridge across intervals of renewable unavailability.
And as others have pointed out: What do the utilities pay homeowners back for that stored energy? Wholesale rates? Sorry. Not interested. I'd be better off keeping my power on my side of th
NOT Why I Have a Backup Battery (Score:2)
How do I block Southern California Edison (SoCalEd) from draining our backup battery? I had the battery installed because of health reasons.
My wife has COPD and Parkinson's. She needs electricity 24/7 to run an oxygen concentrator. She needs electricity to run the stair-lift in our two-story house. I have sleep apnea. I need electricity at night to run the CPAP machine that keeps me breathing.
During a public safety power shutoff (PSPS) earlier this year, we were without electricity from SoCalEd for mor
not the same (Score:3)
> was 535 megawatts, equal to adding a big hydro dam or a half-sized nuclear reactor at a fraction of the cost
It's really not the same, for a number of reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
>> was 535 megawatts, equal to adding a big hydro dam or a half-sized nuclear reactor at a fraction of the cost
> It's really not the same, for a number of reasons.
Correct. But this is /., so you're screaming at the sky. Real tech news is down the hall.
Re: (Score:2)
>> was 535 megawatts, equal to adding a big hydro dam or a half-sized nuclear reactor at a fraction of the cost
> It's really not the same, for a number of reasons.
Well, yeah, but most of the differences are advantageous. The power is basically instantaneous, can be cycled quickly, and has no ongoing environmental negatives. The batteries work as both a source and sink. Ongoing operational costs are far better. The batteries are distributed across the state, which means better robustness.
Re: (Score:2)
>>> was 535 megawatts, equal to adding a big hydro dam or a half-sized nuclear reactor at a fraction of the cost
>> It's really not the same, for a number of reasons.
> Well, yeah, but most of the differences are advantageous. The power is basically instantaneous, can be cycled quickly, and has no ongoing environmental negatives. The batteries work as both a source and sink. Ongoing operational costs are far better. The batteries are distributed across the state, which means better robustness.
Plus someone else paid for most of the infrastructure. That's the utilities' favorite part.