Vermont replacing power plants with home batteries

This article is all over the place, but the principle is pretty simple - rather than adding more generation for peak usage times, batteries store energy generated off peak and smooth out the macro usage trends. Our local utility in NC has a program where they'll pay you ~$50/battery/month to enroll in their virtual power plant program. In exchange, they can take control of your battery up to 36 times per year for a period of a couple hours. Summer events are typically early evening during peak air conditioning times. Winter events are typically early morning during peak heating times. In practice this means one of two things: * They make your battery charge to full capacity in advance of the event, and then you run your home off the battery and don't take any power from the grid during that time * Sometimes you'll also return power to the grid beyond that used by your house - they pay you the contracted rate for the power you deliver We've paired our batteries with solar panels, so generally we have a full charge going into the summer VPP events. We have gas heat, but I expect we'll pay for at least some grid energy to charge batteries during the winter events. Regardless, it's been a good program for us - even without solar, we would not pay for any more power than we used, and the monthly rebate from the utility makes the economics of the system a lot more favorable, especially here in the land of relatively cheap coal power.

I’m in a similar setup where I live in Australia. Our house has solar and battery — unlike the people in the FA, we purchased it directly ourselves, although with a significant government rebate. Our battery is under automatic VPP control, but it’s not like it randomly starts exporting when we don’t want it to. When regional demand is high (hot days) or supply is low (no wind or cloudy), our battery might start exporting. But that’s a good thing for us, because our electricity is priced wholesale and changes every 5 minutes, and export rates are high in this situation. A couple of times there have been price spikes and we’ve made a few hundred dollars in under a hour. It’s a win-win for us (making money) and the grid (providing stability). To be fair, those spikes are rarer now than they were a year ago. You can always control the battery if you want. Sometimes I’ll manually export even if prices aren’t high if I know I don’t need the power in my battery. Sometimes I’ll prevent export if I know I want to charge the car overnight from the battery. But mostly I let it do its thing. From an investment perspective, the battery has been a no-brainer. Even without the windfalls from price spikes, being able to defer grid consumption to daylight hours (when wholesale prices are very cheap or even negative, i.e. we get paid to charge the car) puts the ROI in the 3-5 year range.

Here's a better article: https://electrek.co/2026/07/28/vermonts-largest-energy-sourc... Seems like they supply each person with 2 Tesla powerwalls for the $55/month and get a reduction in their bills that depends on how much power they choose to share to the grid during power outages. They've already closed down 2 peaker power plants because of this, so it doesn't seem to just be about handling power outages, but also handling fluctuating power usage instead of firing up extra power plants.

I'd feel better about this if they weren't charging people thousands for the batteries. As it is, this looks like a scam by utility companies to force their costs onto consumers and charge them for it on top of that. People should be being paid by the utility for storing, hosting, and allowing access to the power company's distributed infrastructure. It's not as if the batteries people are paying for become their property, or are only for the homeowner's benefit. The utility company has the right to use that power however they want at any time including the "right to use all the energy in the battery". The homeowner also has to allow contractors, subcontractors, or third-parties onto their property. Physical access aside, they also have to allow the utility free access to their network and free use of their internet connection/bandwidth. The utility will not compensate homeowners for any of that. Homeowners must also agree to install the utility company's cell phone apps/software. I'd bet those apps are collecting data and probably pushing ads too. They have to agree to the “Customer Privacy” terms, which will only be shown to them "upon installation of the Equipment". The utility company advertises this as a means to prevent power outages (which, if they were doing their job in the first place, should be extremely rare occurrences), but the fine print makes it clear that homeowners should not assume that they will have any access to the power that battery holds in the event of a power outage or at any other time. The utility also requires homeowners to agree to terms that state the utility will not be liable for any damage to persons or property caused by use of/replacement of/repair of/or the utility's failure to repair the utility's equipment and software. The homeowner also "bears the entire risk of loss, theft or damage" to the utility's equipment. This would be a bad deal even if the utility were paying a monthly fee to homeowners. The fact that they've conned customers into paying the utility for using them, their internet, and assuming all liability/responsibility for the utility company's hardware is insane.

I hope that the system designers know what they are doing in Vermont. The way an article is written doesn't explore the fact that at its core batteries are a 'consumer of energy' and not a producer like a power plant. You are losing electrons through heat losses and degradation in a bid to match demand with lowest cost supply. Replacing generators with a battery make sense when the peak capacity is overbuilt, but it shouldn't be left unchecked. The other challenge is that the customer's savings usually come not from the battery itself (the energy arbitrage) but from avoiding the usage charges from their distribution and transmission networks. Deploying batteries on grid without a plan pushes forward the grid death spiral where some users of the network feel like they no longer need to be connected as they can be self sufficient. That means that those that cannot be self sufficient have to share the same cost of infrastructure with less users on it. That is assuming that being self sufficient is economically viable and sufficiently reliable. Those who think that home batteries and solar are 'cheap' should look into the true underlying costs. The per MWh cost of a home system is MUCH more expensive than a utility scale system. The savings are often just an arbitrage on a relatively high level usage-based pricing allocation of the transmission and distribution systems. The network costs are mostly fixed by their nature - it's recovery of equipment cost and ongoing cost of maintenance activities. Cost per KWh can be different at different times because you need higher cost equipment that works during the time of high load. If there is no high load - the equipment is not needed and cost can be reduced. But this cannot happen overnight because the equipment is already there! Without forcing the networks into taking heavy losses - you have to allocate the costs to users,and unfortunately those that cannot afford to have these expensive home systems will end up paying the higher price. In effect your battery 'savings' are coming from people who cannot afford to have one.