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.
It's a 10 year lease agreement. You pay them, and when the 10 years is up you have to return the batteries. At no point does the customer own the batteries.
It's like leasing a car, except with a car lease you have the option to pay extra to buy it out at the end and take ownership; with this lease agreement you don't.
This is like leasing a car except that the dealership can show up with other customers to take "your" car for test drives or just to drive it around for any other reason whenever they want to, for however long they want to, and they won't pay you back for any of the gas they use. Basically turning your personal garage into their distributed showroom.
IIRC pre-covid when the program was quite new, customer could buy the batteries outright. Later on they added the lease option.
One of the issues with these is the limited storage capacity. While it is nice for short outages, there are sometimes multi-day events in the winter. I think the longest was in the late 90s from an ice storm and was over a week. If you have solar, less of an issue but not everyone does (though solar does have surprisingly good install base in Vermont).
I've not checked to see if GMP limits the install locations but do recall some states/munis trying to limit them to outside the home due to fire risk.
Linked from that link: <a href="https://greenmountainpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/ESS-Customer-Agreement-for-Website.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://greenmountainpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/ES...
>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.
I participated in this program early on (currently on year 8 or 9) and I don't think you're giving a fair characterization. First, the batteries took the place of a generator, and have reliable protected my buildings from power outages since. Part of the program is that in case of storm warnings or other risk it actually switches out from the VPP for the duration to protect you instead. So there's direct value to having them, particularly in a rural area of a rural state, regardless of any other money. Having a sizable generator isn't free, not just in terms of purchase but in terms of
Second, the utility did in fact pay with a pretty massive discount (around $5-6k per battery at the time IIRC). The amount they were willing to pay wasn't enough to completely cancel out the battery cost back then, but it was like 70-80% of the cost. And in general looking at all the various VPP programs in the region utilities remain very much willing to pay you per kWh, whether it's a lease or BYOB.
There are multiple ways to make a battery work for you in terms of ROI, and the math has changed over the years as various component costs have changed as well as being individual to each person's situation in terms of their own usage patterns and generation. But I don't think this was a scam at all, it was a genuine win/win even before getting into softer factors like reducing usage of fossil fuel peaker plants that a lot of us do really care about. In an ideal world neutralizing that carbon pollution would all just be built into pricing so the market could better sort it out, but as it stands I don't feel bad about supporting a shift to some extent too. And even though I'm probably going to just buy my own batteries next time around due to other changes, I'd certainly consider contributing to a VPP again depending. It's been a positive experience.
>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)
This is just really hard in some parts of New England given the history of grid development (we have a lot of really weird legacy layouts), weather, trees, population density, and lack of resources. If you're at the end of a quarter to a half mile driveway in the forest up a steep mountain dirt road and aren't able to bury the lines then it can be tough in storms. Plus other weirdness, last year a pole came down and it turns out bears had been using it as a scratching post and just ripped through the entire thing. Was actually pretty cool but also a power outage.
>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.*
In all these years it's never once been an issue though. And I don't consider that "fine print" but obvious: if you're participating in a VPP at all, then obviously there will be times when your battery has been drawn down. That's the deal duh. And with the best will in the world they can't predict things like some drunk driver taking out a pole and causing an outage (this happened again not that long ago). It's not impossible that there could be the bad luck of that happening right when the battery happened to be down to a low level. That's the risk. But they do pay you for it. And almost any way you'd make batteries pay beyond power protection entails some risk or else some cost too, like if you want to rate-shift so that you only pay the lowest night time energy rate by charging then and then running off your batteries during the day, then you'll of course be at risk of lower remaining storage if there's then a grid failure too when you were expecting to charge back up again. You can spend money on that risk in turn, but there's no free lunch here.
> it was a genuine win/win even before getting into softer factors like reducing usage of fossil fuel peaker plants that a lot of us do really care about. In an ideal world neutralizing that carbon pollution would all just be built into pricing so the market could better sort it out, but as it stands I don't feel bad about supporting a shift to some extent too.
We should be doing this as a society (or as a state or as a utility company) instead of relying on individual do-gooders to pay for it. 70-80% of the cost sounds very good, but if you're not getting any latitude on how the things are used, that 20-30% is still unfair. If they belong to the utility, the utility makes all decisions regarding it, and you are giving up your space for it, if anything you should be getting paid, not paying.
They could at least let you actively decide if you want to allow it to be drawn down and to what extent; some sort of latitude. As it is, for them it's money for nothing.
That being said, the article says that they're starting to install them for free. Thanks for sharing your experience.
>We should be doing this as a society (or as a state or as a utility company) instead of relying on individual do-gooders to pay for it.
Sure, but we aren't yet, at least not remotely to the extent required. And we all individually have benefited from the externalized pollution that fossil fuels have been responsible for, this isn't just some nebulous other thing right? It's not unreasonable imo that yeah, we individually should try to pay for that damage we ourselves "profited" from, even while simultaneously trying to vote and organize towards broader solutions. But feeding money into getting off fossil fuel is both directly personally helpful and broadly helpful.
>70-80% of the cost sounds very good, but if you're not getting any latitude on how the things are used, that 20-30% is still unfair. If they belong to the utility, the utility makes all decisions regarding it, and you are giving up your space for it, if anything you should be getting paid, not paying.
I don't agree with you, and it's my money, my buildings and my call to make. I've gotten a plenty solid direct benefit in ROI over the last 8-9 years for the $3k it cost me one time only vs the $15k a couple of PowerWall 2s would have been upfront and then the rate shifting and minimal solar I was in a position for at the time, or alternatively the cost of a new generator and then all the fuel and ongoing maintenance required. The $12k in savings thanks to the utility is money I could put into other investments that have had their own ROI since then. I do think the math now for me and a lot of others is different in 2026 then 2017, there are lots and lots of competitive battery and solar and inverter solutions now at radically reduced prices and that seems to just be accelerating, with sodium based systems and other tech coming. But that wouldn't have offset a real chunk of 9 years of carbon equiv release by me. The batteries got far more usage as part of a system for society then just me, and I still did ok even if it didn't perfectly maximize the individual dollar savings.
>They could at least let you actively decide if you want to allow it to be drawn down and to what extent; some sort of latitude. As it is, for them it's money for nothing.
If you BYOB you do get that choice, though obviously if you let them take less they pay less. But it's not money for nothing, just a weighing of risk/benefit.
>That being said, the article says that they're starting to install them for free.
The battery cost per kWh has fallen enough and I think they've gotten comfortable enough with the landscape shift that I can see that making sense now, not early adopter territory anymore. The utility is also in a position to realize benefits like having a bit more leeway in how they dispatch linemen for repairs, if they know someone is covered for 20 hours and it's currently 15 below zero with whiteout conditions that'll clear in 2 hours maybe it's worth something to be able to not have that be an emergency (or instead to direct emergency efforts to someone else who isn't covered).
>Thanks for sharing your experience.
I'm glad it's come up on HN. It's one of the few real rays of hope I find in all this, that despite failure of collective action it's just getting so good that the economics and politics are tilting anyway. Won't be fast enough to avoid a lot of bad effects, but it can always get worse so the faster the better.
> They could at least let you actively decide if you want to allow it to be drawn down and to what extent; some sort of latitude. As it is, for them it's money for nothing.
Is there possibly a breaker connecting the home mains with the grid? Which side of the breaker is the battery on? Will the system continue to output even if it doesn't have a reference AC waveform from the grid?
It's not really a solution for the utility, it's a solution for the homeowner. The utility can't prevent all power outages or issues for all customers. Normally the homeowner buys a generator to deal with that. The battery is cheaper over time, much less maintenance hassle and less dangerous. The customer just wants their lights to stay on, they don't care how that happens.
> First, the batteries took the place of a generator,
The generator would have been yours, and only used for your needs. It wouldn't have involved any data collection, the uncompensated use of your bandwidth, or exposed you to so much liability.
> Part of the program is that in case of storm warnings or other risk it actually switches out from the VPP for the duration to protect you instead.
They may do this, but by their own terms they aren't obligated to. The good news is that in the event where a cable is cut/down and they lose the ability to siphon power from your battery you will be sure to get the benefit of whatever power it has stored. It's also nice that they compensate you for the power that they draw, but again, all of that energy is already theirs by right.
The state contracts them to provide the people with reliable power and you pay them for that service. They should be expected to reasonably deliver that in exchange. Installing their equipment inside people's homes can be part of how they manage that responsibility, but it's still their responsibility and they should compensate you for that and not expect you to pay them even more for the privilege of paying their costs and accepting liability.
> it was a genuine win/win even before getting into softer factors like reducing usage of fossil fuel peaker plants that a lot of us do really care about.
It's honestly not a bad idea conceptually. It seems like it can have real benefits, but the terms are exploitative. At a minimum they should be obligated to prioritize your power needs above others when it comes to energy stored in the battery on your premises, and they should be obligated to compensate you for power taken, as well as for providing them storage, access, security and bandwidth for their equipment, and they should also assume responsibility for any damage/harm their equipment causes to your property and anyone one on your property as long as it wasn't caused by tampering or improper use. Ideally, you'd also be able to opt out of all personal data collection (not related directly to the use/monitoring of their hardware), and any loss/theft/damage would be covered by their insurance (provided their equipment was reasonably secured), otherwise they'd have to pay you enough to get additional insurance coverage of your own.
I'm glad it worked out for you when you had it, but unless the terms were very different from what they are today you were absolutely cheated and being taken advantage of, even if you didn't feel that way.
A high trust society doesn't cause a monopoly to become efficient. A society where everyone is thinking of the common good is the one where individualism works, because then you have no need for a giant bureaucracy trying to coerce everyone into doing the right thing, since they would do that of their own accord.
But the disadvantage of bureaucratic authoritarianism is even larger in a low-trust society where everyone is in it for themselves, because then you can't trust the bureaucrats not to be corrupt and they're still sitting on a monopoly.
Which is to say, what you always want is a high trust society and what you never want is a monopolist.
Unless you are completely off the grid, you are getting power from a local monopoly. This is baked in. You get your water from one source, send your sewerage to one source, get your power from one source, etc. So then the question is how to make the monopoly well behaved and how to keep them that way.
> Unless you are completely off the grid, you are getting power from a local monopoly. This is baked in.
When you have a "natural monopoly" the thing you want to do is keep it as narrow as conceivably possible, i.e. the opposite of extending the monopoly on wires into authority over generation.
Moreover, the concept of a "natural monopoly" is painted across far more things than it actually applies to.
For example, suppose around half of the people on your street have a solar+battery system and the only reason any of you need a grid connection at all is in case it's cloudy for too many days in a row. Instead of you all paying a central power utility a lot of money, would it be economically feasible (in the absence of adversarial regulations) to run a second set of distribution lines down the existing utility poles or conduits and then install a single large generator that can take care of everyone on your street on those couple of days? Yeah, it pretty well would, and even if you didn't actually do it, the availability of that option would put competitive pressure on the incumbent. So they predictably work to make that economically infeasible through regulatory barriers using fraudulent "natural monopoly" arguments. You don't need an interstate power grid so that a dozen neighbors can share a backup generator.
And if something isn't actually feasible then you don't need to pass a law to ban it, right?
They don't want you messing with their poles/conduits because they don't want you accidentally electrocuting their linemen with shoddy work. There are abusive regulations. I just don't think it's so simple.
Even if you have a licensed electrician to do the work, they still make it an enormous ordeal to install new wires on utility poles. Case in point, what would it take for you to be able to install new fiber? There is no electricity even involved there.
In a high trust society people aren't trying to con you but they're still subject to structural constraints. When Alice has a good idea but Bob has a monopoly, Alice isn't allowed to implement it and Bob doesn't understand it because he's not smart enough to rather than because he's crooked. When a monopolist has a stable source of revenue their management is living in a world where money is available and they start thinking up ways to "help" by spending it, which raises costs even when it's well intentioned and then harms the poor who now have to pay a premium to receive a necessity.
Structural constraints aren't exclusively a problem because they enable corruption. There can be incompetence without malice. All it takes is for someone to be well-intentioned but incorrect, or for the system to allocate rulemaking authority to someone without the information necessary to make the best decision.
The classic example is a large hierarchical organization where the line workers have knowledge of the process but no management competence and correspondingly don't know what information is even relevant to pass up the chain, and the top brass have management training but have been put in charge of so many people that they don't have the bandwidth to know what's actually happening on the ground.
I am aware and mostly agree with the dogma about how decision-making power should be delegated to those with the most relevant information to that decision. In fact, that to me seems a bit tautological and beside the point.
My point is essentially that there are situations where a monopoly is the best system available especially if you can rely on those involved to act in good faith. For example, I think the government holding a monopoly on policing power is the best available system. Within that monopoly power can be delegated a whole manner of ways, but ultimately the public good of policing is distributed through a manner of sub-institutions all answerable to a single institution.
I think the real delta in our views is I see the values of the people within a system as of equal or more importance to the structure of the system itself. It seems to me that you reason about this topic in an almost purely abstract manner, attempting to posit a "perfect" system which could work no matter who was actually implementing it, and indeed would be the best no matter who was actually implementing it. I used to think this way, but came to the conclusion that it was impossible.
> A society where everyone is thinking of the common good is the one where individualism works, because then you have no need for a giant bureaucracy trying to coerce everyone into doing the right thing
A society where everyone is thinking of the common good is the one where the bureaucracy's job isn't coercion, simply efficient management and organization.
Authoritarianism is the problem with bureaucratic authoritarianism, not bureaucracy.
In a high trust society there would never be a need for more than one organization responsible for supplying the public with something like power or water. Centralizing those functions to a single organization would eliminate redundancies and inefficiencies reducing the costs necessary to provide the service. In a high trust society that single company's goal would only be to provide a quality service to the public, instead of demanding endlessly increasing personal enrichment at the expense of the public.
> A society where everyone is thinking of the common good is the one where the bureaucracy's job isn't coercion, simply efficient management and organization. Authoritarianism is the problem with bureaucratic authoritarianism, not bureaucracy.
What happens in your non-authoritarian bureaucracy when the bureaucrats make a decision you believe to be in error and you set out to do something inconsistent with it?
If they're allowed to stop you then you can't demonstrate that their policy is in error by doing the opposite to show that it's better. Whereas if they can't stop you then they don't have a monopoly.
Someone doesn't have to be malicious in order to be imperfect. All it takes is for any one of the >300 million people who are all being inhibited from doing it to be better at it than the monopolist.
> Centralizing those functions to a single organization would eliminate redundancies and inefficiencies reducing the costs necessary to provide the service.
Doing that sort of thing suppresses diversity and breeds monoculture, which is how you get catastrophic systemic failures. When an honest mistake is made it applies not to 2% of your food supply but to 100% of it, which is Very Bad.
> What happens in your non-authoritarian bureaucracy when the bureaucrats make a decision you believe to be in error and you set out to do something inconsistent with it?
You follow the process to have the decision reviewed and you make your case. Even if they reject what you propose you're still able to try to convince others that your idea is better and, assuming that you have a democracy, you can have the rules changed.
> If they're allowed to stop you then you can't demonstrate that their policy is in error
I struggle to imagine a scenario where there's no possible way to determine if an error was made or if a change might be an improvement without just doing it anyway. If it isn't plainly obvious that your idea would be better and there are also no facts, research, examples, models, etc. that give support to your idea you should expect to have trouble convincing others of how great it is. When something only impacts you personally, you can blindly try things without any reason to think it might be better all you like, but people who are making decisions that impact large numbers of people, whole communities even, should require some kind of evidence before changing things for everyone. Ideally, there'd be a process in place so new solutions can be proposed, promising ideas can be explored, researched, trialed, tested, then implemented.
> Doing that sort of thing suppresses diversity and breeds monoculture, which is how you get catastrophic systemic failures.
Sometimes, but not always. What you'd call monoculture can be really great. It's why international standards and internet protocols exist and are followed. It promotes interoperability. It'd be a lot easier to write an app to help people keep tabs on their power usage and charges if there was just one company putting out bills and an API. Even with a single company providing a service they can still make good use of diversification to limit their risks. Companies with tons of competitors often take those kinds of precautions to avoid single points of failure within their operations. The last ISP I worked for had over 15 types of modems in the field from a variety of manufacturers. Some were being trialed, some were being phased out, but a firmware problem or failing component impacting one model wouldn't take down every customer. Companies tend to try to standardize where they can though.
There are certainly some trade offs involved with having one organization handling things, and it's not ideal for every type of service, but things like utilities are good candidates because of the scales involved and because the "product" being delivered is the same. When power companies are doing what's expected of them nobody has a preference for the electricity that Company A provides over what Company B delivers. I wouldn't want a single company making all the pizza though, because in that case variety matters.
> Even if they reject what you propose you're still able to try to convince others that your idea is better and, assuming that you have a democracy, you can have the rules changed.
If you have a good idea in a competitive market, your incentive to advocate for it is that if it succeeds you get market share. If a company has a billion dollars in costs and you can reduce them by 10%, that's worth a hundred million dollars, which is a huge incentive to do it when you get to put the hundred million dollars in your pocket, or capture a large fraction of a market whose net profit has a similar number of zeroes in it.
If you have the same idea but the incumbent monopolist doesn't listen to you, how many hours can you justify advocating for it? Your share of the efficiency as a customer is e.g. $50/year.
> I struggle to imagine a scenario where there's no possible way to determine if an error was made or if a change might be an improvement without just doing it anyway. If it isn't plainly obvious that your idea would be better and there are also no facts, research, examples, models, etc. that give support to your idea you should expect to have trouble convincing others of how great it is.
Models can't give you empirical evidence.
Suppose the monopolist has been doing something a particular way for 100 years. The equipment they use is expensive and lasts 30 years, as is the equipment you want to use instead. Their argument is that they want all their equipment to be uniform and don't want to be stuck with something experimental for the entire service lifetime, so they don't even want to invest in a small trial because if the benefits aren't large they'd either have to replace the trial equipment early or support two types of equipment for three decades. Your argument, which they reject, is that it's worth risking a moderate amount of capital to do a trial with 5% of the installed base.
If there is no monopoly then you risk your own time or money to do the small trial and reap the benefits if it works out. But with a monopolist who says no to the attempt, you can't show that your solution is better because they've declared that the cost of finding out isn't something they're willing to pay, and the option to take the risk onto yourself is taken away.
> It's why international standards and internet protocols exist and are followed. It promotes interoperability. It'd be a lot easier to write an app to help people keep tabs on their power usage and charges if there was just one company putting out bills and an API.
Except that those sort of things don't have anything enforcing the monopoly, and in many cases don't even have one. For example, gzip and lzma both have published formats but they essentially compete with each other, and that's good, because lzma has better compression ratios but gzip is faster and uses less memory. And the existence of either one doesn't prevent the introduction of zstd, which manages to get compression ratios competitive with lzma while still being pretty fast.
And having multiple algorithms doesn't impede interoperability because nobody is forced to use any particular one. A server can use zstd with newer clients that support it and gzip with older ones that don't. If you want to transfer a file you can use https, ftps or sftp. There is a published standard for the telnet protocol and nobody is prevented from replacing it with ssh.
> Even with a single company providing a service they can still make good use of diversification to limit their risks. Companies with tons of competitors often take those kinds of precautions to avoid single points of failure within their operations. The last ISP I worked for had over 15 types of modems in the field from a variety of manufacturers.
At which point you're abandoning the "benefits" of uniformity and scale and then why forego the benefits of a competitive market?
> When power companies are doing what's expected of them nobody has a preference for the electricity that Company A provides over what Company B delivers.
They may have no preference for who generates the electricity because electricity is a fungible commodity, but they certainly do have a preference for a company that can supply it more efficiently at a lower price, and many customers will also have preferences on things like green energy, redundancy/reliability vs. cost, the trade off between having a consistent bill vs. paying live rates that might be lower on average but higher in specific months, etc.
About the only time you have a product where every customer wants the same thing is when you have a product where there is only one customer, e.g. the US military. And those tend to be the things where having a single supplier is extremely bad, since you don't want the single point of failure.
A high trust society wouldn't even have an agreement like the terms this company asks customers to agree to.
Companies in the US have violated the public's trust so often and so brazenly that consumers are forced to treat them as adversarial. Companies insist that we live in a low trust society because they want to take advantage of us, and they aggressively oppose consumer protection laws and efforts to regulate them in ways that would allow us to have more trust.
>The generator would have been yours, and only used for your needs.
It also would have required constant testing and cost whether I used it or not, with no ROI whatsoever beyond power backup, a lot more noise/local pollution/size, storage of significant amounts of extra fuel (be it propane or diesel) with the resulting challenges, etc. Maybe the best bet and the one I was most strongly considering would be a PTO generator I could hook my tractor up to, then I'd get all the engine testing and fuel refreshing/storage "for free" on some level, in that I run the tractor anyway. But that still would have been dead cost most of the time, and on a basic but real human physical level, having to go out to the barn to hook things up and unhook them in the heart of winter wasn't a delightful prospect either. Propane doesn't go bad and maybe I could have finagled that into my heating system for a unified tank instead of multiple but that's still its own complexity, and place to house it and so on. And in retrospect that would have reduced the value of the heat pumps I've done since.
Batteries are nice. And I'm glad it wasn't only used for my needs. I like helping my neighbors, my town, and my state.
>It wouldn't have involved any data collection, the uncompensated use of your bandwidth, or exposed you to so much liability.
I'm definitely sensitive to data collection, and full local control has always been something I've cared a lot about and is a significant consideration going forward. But I've got the PW isolated on its own VLAN going through my OPNsense router, and the granularity of its perspective is I think pretty course. Given what I'm running I just don't think there's a whole lot, if anything, it can glean the power company couldn't already, it's pretty out there on the master panel so it doesn't even see just the house, use from the barn and office and so on is all mixed into the signal. Taking into account what was on offer and far tighter finances at the time I think I did the best I could.
This is also a case where I think some level of regulated, low granularity population data may be pretty important in terms of infra planning our shift to only renewables and a smarter grid. I'll have to keep thinking about that though.
>They may do this, but by their own terms they aren't obligated to
I'd have to double check if my terms from back then are different then what they offer now, but ultimately the fact remains that across hundreds of outages and blips over 8-9 years with a couple of devastating floods and storms in the mix it has never been an issue even once. These aren't megacorps, utilities here are pretty tiny by national standards and pretty responsive (as well as regulated).
>The state contracts them to provide the people with reliable power and you pay them for that service. They should be expected to reasonably deliver that in exchange. Installing their equipment inside people's homes can be part of how they manage that responsibility, but it's still their responsibility and they should compensate you for that and not expect you to pay them even more for the privilege of paying their costs and accepting liability.
GMP has I believe something like 10,000 miles of pole distribution lines for 265000 customers, but of course those customers are not evenly distributed, there are towns around here with literally double digits of people. And it's the biggest one, there are tons of smaller outfits and coops etc. "Reliable" doesn't mean "perfect" and never has, that's just not possible at the prices people can afford here.
I mean really, on some level everyone needs to be ready to contribute in general for life here sometimes. State is responsible for roads and such too, but if it's bad I and others get out our chainsaws (now electric! electric chainsaws are AWESOME) and winches and so on and get to work. State police provide coverage and will respond eventually, but it might be 30-120 minutes (or more sometimes). I've taken first responder courses, folks volunteer for fire departments and other roles, folks have guns. Others who can't do any of that can still bring people out clearing trees hot food and drinks and general support and that's a serious contribution and appreciated too. Dunno, not saying utilities shouldn't keep pushing hard and being pushed, nobody wants to be a floor mat, but I feel like they've been pretty solid and they really have been trying hard over the last few decades.
>It's honestly not a bad idea conceptually. It seems like it can have real benefits, but the terms are exploitative.
Some of your list feels like reasonable avenues for improvement, others feel totally unrealistic to a degree that it'd really end of restricting who could benefit. I don't think the juice would be worth the squeeze there. But BYOB is an option with a self-consumption plan, where rather then supplying power back you instead basically get disconnected from the grid during peak events, see [0]. The terms and conditions aren't nothing, but power infrastructure is pretty serious business and I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect the utility not to want some pretty clear control and terms around it. And if you want out of it looks pretty reasonable, 30 days notice and you pay back a prorated portion of upfront incentives and that's that.
Also, "bandwidth", seriously? I'm looking at Netflow for the electric infra VLAN and it's like, 1.5-4 kbps, with occasional spikes to... 25 kbps for like a second. Yeah we're the boonies and progress is slow, but nice outfits like NEK Broadband [1] have been working hard and we've got fiber now, and of course Starlink is an option, sometimes even cellular. But even on crappy old 5/1 ADSL like I had to live with for 20 years it's not much. Come on. Rural America isn't that far back, we've gotten a ways beyond 14.4k modems.
You and I live in areas where social norms are to help our neighbours and contribute to our communities. GP seems to live in a place where relationships are contractual - he pays taxes and expects to be served in return with no effort on his part.
Often people from different societies have difficulty understanding how anyone "could live like that" - in both directions.
I am struggling here too. I think there are some decent points at the margins, but I can't get past the idea, "If this is the one place I am being exploited, I would be pretty ok with that."
Helping neighbors and contributing to communities is great! Getting taken for a ride by a utility company isn't either of those things. The relationship with their utility company is literally contractual. They make you sign a contract! A contract with very bad terms. They're pushing some of the typical costs of running their business onto their customers, leaving them entirely responsible in the event that anything goes wrong, even when their customers do nothing wrong and have no control over the situation, and they are making the customer pay them for the privilege while not being legally obligated to provide anything in return.
Also yes, paying taxes should entitle someone to basic minimums like the ability to pay for clean drinking water delivered to your tap, and reliable power delivered to your home. We aren't a developing country, we're the richest nation on Earth. The extent of the "effort on my part" should be limited to signing up with the utility company and paying my bills every month. Everything else is their job. It's what they are paid for. What "effort on your part" are you making in your life to help your water company? Your cable company?
> It also would have required constant testing and cost whether I used it or not, with no ROI whatsoever beyond power backup, a lot more noise/local pollution/size, storage of significant amounts of extra fuel (be it propane or diesel) with the resulting challenges, etc.
According to the utility company you should have one anyway because you may not have access to the power available in your battery even when it is full. Even when you need it, they can decide to send it somewhere else.
> And I'm glad it wasn't only used for my needs. I like helping my neighbors, my town, and my state.
In this case you're also helping your utility company and being charged for the privilege. How often have they helped you with something you weren't paying them for?
> These aren't megacorps, utilities here are pretty tiny
Your energy company is a subsidiary of Énergir. It's the largest power company in Vermont providing service to the vast majority of the state. They also provide power for New York, Maine and Connecticut. Énergir is also the largest natural gas distribution company in Quebec. This is not a local mom and pop operation.
> I mean really, on some level everyone needs to be ready to contribute in general for life here sometimes. State is responsible for roads and such too, but if it's bad I and others get out our chainsaws (now electric! electric chainsaws are AWESOME) and winches and so on and get to work.
How much do your neighbors charge you when you help clear the roads with your chainsaws? Do they make you legally liable for any damage to cars if there are accidents on that road after you helped clear it? Would it be absurd if they did?
If you really want to volunteer to help host/power/secure/connect your utility company's infrastructure for them that's very sweet of you, I'm sure that will save them a lot of money, but they are also charging you a bill to do it for them and then they're leaving you liable for things entirely outside of your control while also making you agree that you'll be responsible for any harm caused by their equipment. They aren't being your friend here. They aren't looking out for you. They aren't acting like a part of your community. They are charging you and your state money, externalizing some of their costs and risks by putting them onto you, and charging you thousands for that.
Data collection is very useful and valuable to you when done right. We need to ensure the data isn't abused, but that doesn't mean data collection is bad when the data is used correctly.
The utility is well aware that power outages happen and make their customers mad. They want to solve them, but they also know cost matters and so that takes many ways to solve power outages out. Data used correctly from systems like this make power more reliable and it can be cost effective. By giving the utility access to this data they can better serve everybody.
Again, the key is that the data is used to serve everybody and not used for any of the abuses it can also be used for.
IIUC, the benefit for the customer is a battery backup that is much cheaper than buying the batteries themselves would be, plus the ability to make money when their battery is taken over for a few hours during occasional peak usage events. Provided the former override the latter, as seems to be the case, I don't see what the issue is.
I think you're claiming that battery backup shouldn't be needed in the first place if the power company was doing their job properly, since then there wouldn't be frequent outages in the first place. But I gather that this just isn't practical in rural Vermont. To put it another way: In that environment, a power company guaranteeing 99.999% uptime could not offer this at a price that is acceptable to most customers. So the equilibrium naturally shifts towards citizens tolerating more frequent outages than would be tolerated in, say, central NYC, and/or paying for mitigations like generators or batteries.
> IIUC, the benefit for the customer is a battery backup that is much cheaper than buying the batteries themselves would be, plus the ability to make money when their battery is taken over for a few hours during occasional peak usage events. Provided the former override the latter, as seems to be the case, I don't see what the issue is.
They don't get a battery backup. The utility company gets a battery backup and the customer pays a large percentage of that cost. The utility company isn't obligated to let the consumer who paid for part of that battery draw power from it, ever. They explicitly state that all the energy it stores is theirs, and that they can drain all of it away any time they want to.
Customers are being contractually obligated to shell out thousands of dollars, over a 10 year commitment they're punished for backing out of, obligated to not hold the utility company responsible for any damage they cause, obligated to take on a bunch of liability for things they have no control over, obligated to allow the company access to their property, obligated to allow the company access to use their internet service free of charge, and for all of that the utility company isn't obligated to do anything but install the company's equipment on the customer's property
All the customer gets is that maybe they'll be paid for the power the company takes from the battery (the company doesn't have to pay anything) and to maybe get to draw power from it if there's a service outage (the company isn't obligated to let them use any of it).
There are customers who say they are being paid for that energy and they have been able to use the power to avoid outages, and that's great, but that can change at any time and for any reason because the terms they agreed to don't obligate the utility to do either of those things. The terms explicitly say that all of the energy in the battery belongs to the utility company and they can use it however they see fit.
Maybe this utility company is the nicest company in the world. Maybe the utility company today would volunteer out of the kindness of their heart to rebuild someone's house if a software update causes the battery to catch fire and the customer's home burned to the ground along with everything in it, but the terms say they wouldn't have to do that and couldn't be made to. Maybe the company would never ever stop paying customers for the energy they take, or leave the customer without power while they drain the full battery to help restore service for businesses or wealthier customers. The terms would let them do those things though.
You shouldn't pay out thousands of dollars, take on a list of obligations, and expose yourself to huge risks and liabilities and then still be forced to just hope that the company will do the right thing, and keep doing the right thing for the next decade of your life. That's the problem.
I've now read the GMP terms on their website, and I've moved closer to your position.
> They don't get a battery backup.
The customer in effect gets a "probabilistic" battery backup -- whatever is in the battery at outage time. As you say, the terms (para. 15) explicitly allow that GMP can use the entire battery at any time; it seems I was confusing those terms with different ones ("at most 36 times per year") mentioned by another commenter, which were actually for a different company, in NC. This is not as good as a battery that you fully control, and it would have been nice to see GMP place limits on its usage level in the terms, but it's much better than nothing, as made clear by commenter xoa and the customers interviewed in TFA. GMP wants high total charge levels in customer batteries, so their incentives are aligned with customers; the only potential misalignment I see is that it may not matter to GMP how that charge is distributed across customer batteries (to them, everyone at 50% charge may look identical to 50% of customers at full charge and 50% empty, but the former is much better from customers' perspective), but I also can't think of any reason why GMP would benefit from an unbalanced charge distribution, and maintaining rough balance seems straightforward, so I don't think that would be a conflict in practice.
> maybe get to draw power from it if there's a service outage (the company isn't obligated to let them use any of it).
This is simply wrong. Para. 15 explicitly obligates GMP to permit this:
> As Lessee, Customer’s control over the Energy Storage System is limited to its usage as a backup power source in the event of a power outage up to the point that the battery is completely depleted.
Outages are obviously "bidirectional", so there's no conceivable way for GMP to draw on the battery in the event of one anyway!
I didn't see any mention of net metering or payment for exporting electricity back out to the grid, which surprised me. Without such an agreement in writing, it seems unlikely that GMP would ever pay for this access, so I agree with you there.
The internet usage clause is reasonable and common sense, IMO. I suppose it would be better to include an upper limit to make sure that it isn't hogging the connection, but it would be my very last concern.
The only clause that I really disliked was para. 20, clearing them of any liability for damages caused by the battery.
> Para. 15 explicitly obligates GMP to permit this:
As Lessee, Customer’s control over the Energy Storage System is limited to its usage as a backup power source in the event of a power outage up to the point that the battery is completely depleted
That doesn't bind GMP, it binds the customer. It simply limits their control over the battery to a specific use under a specific circumstance. I suspect that GMP will often be left without the ability to stop users from using their battery as a backup in the event of a power outage (depending on the nature of the outage) but they make it clear that when they can, they are entitled to by adding:
"GMP shall have the ability to continuously utilize the Energy Storage System at its sole discretion for the Term and has the right to use all the energy in the battery."
It does state that the system they install will have "whole-
home backup power capability" and the program description includes the line "The Energy Storage System can [note CAN and not WILL] provide Customer with whole-home backup power during a Grid outage."
I think there's a fair expectation that at least some of the time the battery will work to supply whole-home backup power when there's an outage. They were pretty careful to pepper in enough weasel words throughout to keep their options open when they have options at all though. Like you said, outages can be "bidirectional". A cut cable isn't going let stored power out any more than it lets the power in.
The biggest concern I can see is power being shifted to keep the lights on for specific customers while leaving others with power-filled batteries in the dark or draining faster. We already see a lot of inequalities with how power companies treat people. Wealthier neighborhoods are often less likely to experience outages, get their power restored sooner, are more likely to get upgrades/maintenance, etc. Having these batteries in people's homes, especially those farther out from critical infrastructure (which usually gets top priority from utility companies) can actually help with that, but only if the utility company plays fair. It'd be nice to see something explicit that would give priority to the energy stored in the battery to the homeowner who helped pay for it in times of need.
> The internet usage clause is reasonable and common sense, IMO. I suppose it would be better to include an upper limit to make sure that it isn't hogging the connection, but it would be my very last concern.
I'm glad that reportedly the bandwidth usage isn't heavy at least. It'd be nice if they segmented off the device for customers when they installed the service. Not many users will be able to isolate their home network from the utility's equipment. I could see these batteries being a good target for hackers to get a foothold into a person's network and I've seen examples where companies use their access to a person's home network as a way to collect more consumer data through scans.
I'm also curious to know whats in the privacy policy they won't show you until after they show up to install the device.
It's more economically optimal to convince wealthy Vermonters to house the batteries by branding it as subsidized resilience than it is to buy and maintain substations?
If home owners are paying then it might be less efficient for the overall economy but better for the utility company. It is often easier to find a million people willing to spend a thousand dollars than finding one person willing to spend a billion.
There’s probably a significant element of consumer batteries being so good, so easy to setup, and so cheap to buy. That it actually ends up being more economical to take this approach, than build dedicated utility scale battery storage.
With consumer units, you can reasonably expect that they’ll operate with zero maintenance and zero direct supervision for a decade plus. If the cost of those units is low enough, that reduced operational burden starts looking very attractive, especially if you want to scale up your battery capacity across your network very quickly.
>With consumer units, you can reasonably expect that they’ll operate with zero maintenance and zero direct supervision for a decade plus
I highly doubt it. You can reasonably expect one hard drive to operate just fine for years, but data centers have to constantly replace failed drives, and that would still be true if they they put each one in a different building. It would just cost a lot more to do.
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
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.
MithrilTuxedo · · focus · HN ↗
It is as if. The article says it's a lease agreement, and provides this link.
<a href="https://greenmountainpower.com/rebates-programs/home-energy-storage/energy-storage/" rel="nofollow">https://greenmountainpower.com/rebates-programs/home-energy-...
>the homeowner "bears the entire risk of loss, theft or damage" to the utility's equipment.
What are you quoting?
wlesieutre · · focus · HN ↗
It's like leasing a car, except with a car lease you have the option to pay extra to buy it out at the end and take ownership; with this lease agreement you don't.
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
beezle · · focus · HN ↗
One of the issues with these is the limited storage capacity. While it is nice for short outages, there are sometimes multi-day events in the winter. I think the longest was in the late 90s from an ice storm and was over a week. If you have solar, less of an issue but not everyone does (though solar does have surprisingly good install base in Vermont).
I've not checked to see if GMP limits the install locations but do recall some states/munis trying to limit them to outside the home due to fire risk.
eru · · focus · HN ↗
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
xoa · · focus · HN ↗
I participated in this program early on (currently on year 8 or 9) and I don't think you're giving a fair characterization. First, the batteries took the place of a generator, and have reliable protected my buildings from power outages since. Part of the program is that in case of storm warnings or other risk it actually switches out from the VPP for the duration to protect you instead. So there's direct value to having them, particularly in a rural area of a rural state, regardless of any other money. Having a sizable generator isn't free, not just in terms of purchase but in terms of
Second, the utility did in fact pay with a pretty massive discount (around $5-6k per battery at the time IIRC). The amount they were willing to pay wasn't enough to completely cancel out the battery cost back then, but it was like 70-80% of the cost. And in general looking at all the various VPP programs in the region utilities remain very much willing to pay you per kWh, whether it's a lease or BYOB.
There are multiple ways to make a battery work for you in terms of ROI, and the math has changed over the years as various component costs have changed as well as being individual to each person's situation in terms of their own usage patterns and generation. But I don't think this was a scam at all, it was a genuine win/win even before getting into softer factors like reducing usage of fossil fuel peaker plants that a lot of us do really care about. In an ideal world neutralizing that carbon pollution would all just be built into pricing so the market could better sort it out, but as it stands I don't feel bad about supporting a shift to some extent too. And even though I'm probably going to just buy my own batteries next time around due to other changes, I'd certainly consider contributing to a VPP again depending. It's been a positive experience.
>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)
This is just really hard in some parts of New England given the history of grid development (we have a lot of really weird legacy layouts), weather, trees, population density, and lack of resources. If you're at the end of a quarter to a half mile driveway in the forest up a steep mountain dirt road and aren't able to bury the lines then it can be tough in storms. Plus other weirdness, last year a pole came down and it turns out bears had been using it as a scratching post and just ripped through the entire thing. Was actually pretty cool but also a power outage.
>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.*
In all these years it's never once been an issue though. And I don't consider that "fine print" but obvious: if you're participating in a VPP at all, then obviously there will be times when your battery has been drawn down. That's the deal duh. And with the best will in the world they can't predict things like some drunk driver taking out a pole and causing an outage (this happened again not that long ago). It's not impossible that there could be the bad luck of that happening right when the battery happened to be down to a low level. That's the risk. But they do pay you for it. And almost any way you'd make batteries pay beyond power protection entails some risk or else some cost too, like if you want to rate-shift so that you only pay the lowest night time energy rate by charging then and then running off your batteries during the day, then you'll of course be at risk of lower remaining storage if there's then a grid failure too when you were expecting to charge back up again. You can spend money on that risk in turn, but there's no free lunch here.
pessimizer · · focus · HN ↗
We should be doing this as a society (or as a state or as a utility company) instead of relying on individual do-gooders to pay for it. 70-80% of the cost sounds very good, but if you're not getting any latitude on how the things are used, that 20-30% is still unfair. If they belong to the utility, the utility makes all decisions regarding it, and you are giving up your space for it, if anything you should be getting paid, not paying.
They could at least let you actively decide if you want to allow it to be drawn down and to what extent; some sort of latitude. As it is, for them it's money for nothing.
That being said, the article says that they're starting to install them for free. Thanks for sharing your experience.
xoa · · focus · HN ↗
Sure, but we aren't yet, at least not remotely to the extent required. And we all individually have benefited from the externalized pollution that fossil fuels have been responsible for, this isn't just some nebulous other thing right? It's not unreasonable imo that yeah, we individually should try to pay for that damage we ourselves "profited" from, even while simultaneously trying to vote and organize towards broader solutions. But feeding money into getting off fossil fuel is both directly personally helpful and broadly helpful.
>70-80% of the cost sounds very good, but if you're not getting any latitude on how the things are used, that 20-30% is still unfair. If they belong to the utility, the utility makes all decisions regarding it, and you are giving up your space for it, if anything you should be getting paid, not paying.
I don't agree with you, and it's my money, my buildings and my call to make. I've gotten a plenty solid direct benefit in ROI over the last 8-9 years for the $3k it cost me one time only vs the $15k a couple of PowerWall 2s would have been upfront and then the rate shifting and minimal solar I was in a position for at the time, or alternatively the cost of a new generator and then all the fuel and ongoing maintenance required. The $12k in savings thanks to the utility is money I could put into other investments that have had their own ROI since then. I do think the math now for me and a lot of others is different in 2026 then 2017, there are lots and lots of competitive battery and solar and inverter solutions now at radically reduced prices and that seems to just be accelerating, with sodium based systems and other tech coming. But that wouldn't have offset a real chunk of 9 years of carbon equiv release by me. The batteries got far more usage as part of a system for society then just me, and I still did ok even if it didn't perfectly maximize the individual dollar savings.
>They could at least let you actively decide if you want to allow it to be drawn down and to what extent; some sort of latitude. As it is, for them it's money for nothing.
If you BYOB you do get that choice, though obviously if you let them take less they pay less. But it's not money for nothing, just a weighing of risk/benefit.
>That being said, the article says that they're starting to install them for free.
The battery cost per kWh has fallen enough and I think they've gotten comfortable enough with the landscape shift that I can see that making sense now, not early adopter territory anymore. The utility is also in a position to realize benefits like having a bit more leeway in how they dispatch linemen for repairs, if they know someone is covered for 20 hours and it's currently 15 below zero with whiteout conditions that'll clear in 2 hours maybe it's worth something to be able to not have that be an emergency (or instead to direct emergency efforts to someone else who isn't covered).
>Thanks for sharing your experience.
I'm glad it's come up on HN. It's one of the few real rays of hope I find in all this, that despite failure of collective action it's just getting so good that the economics and politics are tilting anyway. Won't be fast enough to avoid a lot of bad effects, but it can always get worse so the faster the better.
dotancohen · · focus · HN ↗
0xbadcafebee · · focus · HN ↗
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
The generator would have been yours, and only used for your needs. It wouldn't have involved any data collection, the uncompensated use of your bandwidth, or exposed you to so much liability.
> Part of the program is that in case of storm warnings or other risk it actually switches out from the VPP for the duration to protect you instead.
They may do this, but by their own terms they aren't obligated to. The good news is that in the event where a cable is cut/down and they lose the ability to siphon power from your battery you will be sure to get the benefit of whatever power it has stored. It's also nice that they compensate you for the power that they draw, but again, all of that energy is already theirs by right.
The state contracts them to provide the people with reliable power and you pay them for that service. They should be expected to reasonably deliver that in exchange. Installing their equipment inside people's homes can be part of how they manage that responsibility, but it's still their responsibility and they should compensate you for that and not expect you to pay them even more for the privilege of paying their costs and accepting liability.
> it was a genuine win/win even before getting into softer factors like reducing usage of fossil fuel peaker plants that a lot of us do really care about.
It's honestly not a bad idea conceptually. It seems like it can have real benefits, but the terms are exploitative. At a minimum they should be obligated to prioritize your power needs above others when it comes to energy stored in the battery on your premises, and they should be obligated to compensate you for power taken, as well as for providing them storage, access, security and bandwidth for their equipment, and they should also assume responsibility for any damage/harm their equipment causes to your property and anyone one on your property as long as it wasn't caused by tampering or improper use. Ideally, you'd also be able to opt out of all personal data collection (not related directly to the use/monitoring of their hardware), and any loss/theft/damage would be covered by their insurance (provided their equipment was reasonably secured), otherwise they'd have to pay you enough to get additional insurance coverage of your own.
I'm glad it worked out for you when you had it, but unless the terms were very different from what they are today you were absolutely cheated and being taken advantage of, even if you didn't feel that way.
testing22321 · · focus · HN ↗
God forbid we live in a world where sharing and helping others is OK.
miroljub · · focus · HN ↗
I think there are better ways of sharing and helping.
lmz · · focus · HN ↗
AnthonyMouse · · focus · HN ↗
But the disadvantage of bureaucratic authoritarianism is even larger in a low-trust society where everyone is in it for themselves, because then you can't trust the bureaucrats not to be corrupt and they're still sitting on a monopoly.
Which is to say, what you always want is a high trust society and what you never want is a monopolist.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
DFHippie · · focus · HN ↗
AnthonyMouse · · focus · HN ↗
When you have a "natural monopoly" the thing you want to do is keep it as narrow as conceivably possible, i.e. the opposite of extending the monopoly on wires into authority over generation.
Moreover, the concept of a "natural monopoly" is painted across far more things than it actually applies to.
For example, suppose around half of the people on your street have a solar+battery system and the only reason any of you need a grid connection at all is in case it's cloudy for too many days in a row. Instead of you all paying a central power utility a lot of money, would it be economically feasible (in the absence of adversarial regulations) to run a second set of distribution lines down the existing utility poles or conduits and then install a single large generator that can take care of everyone on your street on those couple of days? Yeah, it pretty well would, and even if you didn't actually do it, the availability of that option would put competitive pressure on the incumbent. So they predictably work to make that economically infeasible through regulatory barriers using fraudulent "natural monopoly" arguments. You don't need an interstate power grid so that a dozen neighbors can share a backup generator.
And if something isn't actually feasible then you don't need to pass a law to ban it, right?
DFHippie · · focus · HN ↗
AnthonyMouse · · focus · HN ↗
Even if you have a licensed electrician to do the work, they still make it an enormous ordeal to install new wires on utility poles. Case in point, what would it take for you to be able to install new fiber? There is no electricity even involved there.
irenaeus · · focus · HN ↗
Actually it very literally does.
AnthonyMouse · · focus · HN ↗
In a high trust society people aren't trying to con you but they're still subject to structural constraints. When Alice has a good idea but Bob has a monopoly, Alice isn't allowed to implement it and Bob doesn't understand it because he's not smart enough to rather than because he's crooked. When a monopolist has a stable source of revenue their management is living in a world where money is available and they start thinking up ways to "help" by spending it, which raises costs even when it's well intentioned and then harms the poor who now have to pay a premium to receive a necessity.
irenaeus · · focus · HN ↗
In a high trust society people are not, generally, trying to con you whether or not they are subject to structural constraints.
AnthonyMouse · · focus · HN ↗
The classic example is a large hierarchical organization where the line workers have knowledge of the process but no management competence and correspondingly don't know what information is even relevant to pass up the chain, and the top brass have management training but have been put in charge of so many people that they don't have the bandwidth to know what's actually happening on the ground.
irenaeus · · focus · HN ↗
My point is essentially that there are situations where a monopoly is the best system available especially if you can rely on those involved to act in good faith. For example, I think the government holding a monopoly on policing power is the best available system. Within that monopoly power can be delegated a whole manner of ways, but ultimately the public good of policing is distributed through a manner of sub-institutions all answerable to a single institution.
I think the real delta in our views is I see the values of the people within a system as of equal or more importance to the structure of the system itself. It seems to me that you reason about this topic in an almost purely abstract manner, attempting to posit a "perfect" system which could work no matter who was actually implementing it, and indeed would be the best no matter who was actually implementing it. I used to think this way, but came to the conclusion that it was impossible.
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
A society where everyone is thinking of the common good is the one where the bureaucracy's job isn't coercion, simply efficient management and organization. Authoritarianism is the problem with bureaucratic authoritarianism, not bureaucracy.
In a high trust society there would never be a need for more than one organization responsible for supplying the public with something like power or water. Centralizing those functions to a single organization would eliminate redundancies and inefficiencies reducing the costs necessary to provide the service. In a high trust society that single company's goal would only be to provide a quality service to the public, instead of demanding endlessly increasing personal enrichment at the expense of the public.
AnthonyMouse · · focus · HN ↗
What happens in your non-authoritarian bureaucracy when the bureaucrats make a decision you believe to be in error and you set out to do something inconsistent with it?
If they're allowed to stop you then you can't demonstrate that their policy is in error by doing the opposite to show that it's better. Whereas if they can't stop you then they don't have a monopoly.
Someone doesn't have to be malicious in order to be imperfect. All it takes is for any one of the >300 million people who are all being inhibited from doing it to be better at it than the monopolist.
> Centralizing those functions to a single organization would eliminate redundancies and inefficiencies reducing the costs necessary to provide the service.
Doing that sort of thing suppresses diversity and breeds monoculture, which is how you get catastrophic systemic failures. When an honest mistake is made it applies not to 2% of your food supply but to 100% of it, which is Very Bad.
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
You follow the process to have the decision reviewed and you make your case. Even if they reject what you propose you're still able to try to convince others that your idea is better and, assuming that you have a democracy, you can have the rules changed.
> If they're allowed to stop you then you can't demonstrate that their policy is in error
I struggle to imagine a scenario where there's no possible way to determine if an error was made or if a change might be an improvement without just doing it anyway. If it isn't plainly obvious that your idea would be better and there are also no facts, research, examples, models, etc. that give support to your idea you should expect to have trouble convincing others of how great it is. When something only impacts you personally, you can blindly try things without any reason to think it might be better all you like, but people who are making decisions that impact large numbers of people, whole communities even, should require some kind of evidence before changing things for everyone. Ideally, there'd be a process in place so new solutions can be proposed, promising ideas can be explored, researched, trialed, tested, then implemented.
> Doing that sort of thing suppresses diversity and breeds monoculture, which is how you get catastrophic systemic failures.
Sometimes, but not always. What you'd call monoculture can be really great. It's why international standards and internet protocols exist and are followed. It promotes interoperability. It'd be a lot easier to write an app to help people keep tabs on their power usage and charges if there was just one company putting out bills and an API. Even with a single company providing a service they can still make good use of diversification to limit their risks. Companies with tons of competitors often take those kinds of precautions to avoid single points of failure within their operations. The last ISP I worked for had over 15 types of modems in the field from a variety of manufacturers. Some were being trialed, some were being phased out, but a firmware problem or failing component impacting one model wouldn't take down every customer. Companies tend to try to standardize where they can though.
There are certainly some trade offs involved with having one organization handling things, and it's not ideal for every type of service, but things like utilities are good candidates because of the scales involved and because the "product" being delivered is the same. When power companies are doing what's expected of them nobody has a preference for the electricity that Company A provides over what Company B delivers. I wouldn't want a single company making all the pizza though, because in that case variety matters.
AnthonyMouse · · focus · HN ↗
If you have a good idea in a competitive market, your incentive to advocate for it is that if it succeeds you get market share. If a company has a billion dollars in costs and you can reduce them by 10%, that's worth a hundred million dollars, which is a huge incentive to do it when you get to put the hundred million dollars in your pocket, or capture a large fraction of a market whose net profit has a similar number of zeroes in it.
If you have the same idea but the incumbent monopolist doesn't listen to you, how many hours can you justify advocating for it? Your share of the efficiency as a customer is e.g. $50/year.
> I struggle to imagine a scenario where there's no possible way to determine if an error was made or if a change might be an improvement without just doing it anyway. If it isn't plainly obvious that your idea would be better and there are also no facts, research, examples, models, etc. that give support to your idea you should expect to have trouble convincing others of how great it is.
Models can't give you empirical evidence.
Suppose the monopolist has been doing something a particular way for 100 years. The equipment they use is expensive and lasts 30 years, as is the equipment you want to use instead. Their argument is that they want all their equipment to be uniform and don't want to be stuck with something experimental for the entire service lifetime, so they don't even want to invest in a small trial because if the benefits aren't large they'd either have to replace the trial equipment early or support two types of equipment for three decades. Your argument, which they reject, is that it's worth risking a moderate amount of capital to do a trial with 5% of the installed base.
If there is no monopoly then you risk your own time or money to do the small trial and reap the benefits if it works out. But with a monopolist who says no to the attempt, you can't show that your solution is better because they've declared that the cost of finding out isn't something they're willing to pay, and the option to take the risk onto yourself is taken away.
> It's why international standards and internet protocols exist and are followed. It promotes interoperability. It'd be a lot easier to write an app to help people keep tabs on their power usage and charges if there was just one company putting out bills and an API.
Except that those sort of things don't have anything enforcing the monopoly, and in many cases don't even have one. For example, gzip and lzma both have published formats but they essentially compete with each other, and that's good, because lzma has better compression ratios but gzip is faster and uses less memory. And the existence of either one doesn't prevent the introduction of zstd, which manages to get compression ratios competitive with lzma while still being pretty fast.
And having multiple algorithms doesn't impede interoperability because nobody is forced to use any particular one. A server can use zstd with newer clients that support it and gzip with older ones that don't. If you want to transfer a file you can use https, ftps or sftp. There is a published standard for the telnet protocol and nobody is prevented from replacing it with ssh.
> Even with a single company providing a service they can still make good use of diversification to limit their risks. Companies with tons of competitors often take those kinds of precautions to avoid single points of failure within their operations. The last ISP I worked for had over 15 types of modems in the field from a variety of manufacturers.
At which point you're abandoning the "benefits" of uniformity and scale and then why forego the benefits of a competitive market?
> When power companies are doing what's expected of them nobody has a preference for the electricity that Company A provides over what Company B delivers.
They may have no preference for who generates the electricity because electricity is a fungible commodity, but they certainly do have a preference for a company that can supply it more efficiently at a lower price, and many customers will also have preferences on things like green energy, redundancy/reliability vs. cost, the trade off between having a consistent bill vs. paying live rates that might be lower on average but higher in specific months, etc.
About the only time you have a product where every customer wants the same thing is when you have a product where there is only one customer, e.g. the US military. And those tend to be the things where having a single supplier is extremely bad, since you don't want the single point of failure.
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
Companies in the US have violated the public's trust so often and so brazenly that consumers are forced to treat them as adversarial. Companies insist that we live in a low trust society because they want to take advantage of us, and they aggressively oppose consumer protection laws and efforts to regulate them in ways that would allow us to have more trust.
rcxdude · · focus · HN ↗
xoa · · focus · HN ↗
It also would have required constant testing and cost whether I used it or not, with no ROI whatsoever beyond power backup, a lot more noise/local pollution/size, storage of significant amounts of extra fuel (be it propane or diesel) with the resulting challenges, etc. Maybe the best bet and the one I was most strongly considering would be a PTO generator I could hook my tractor up to, then I'd get all the engine testing and fuel refreshing/storage "for free" on some level, in that I run the tractor anyway. But that still would have been dead cost most of the time, and on a basic but real human physical level, having to go out to the barn to hook things up and unhook them in the heart of winter wasn't a delightful prospect either. Propane doesn't go bad and maybe I could have finagled that into my heating system for a unified tank instead of multiple but that's still its own complexity, and place to house it and so on. And in retrospect that would have reduced the value of the heat pumps I've done since.
Batteries are nice. And I'm glad it wasn't only used for my needs. I like helping my neighbors, my town, and my state.
>It wouldn't have involved any data collection, the uncompensated use of your bandwidth, or exposed you to so much liability.
I'm definitely sensitive to data collection, and full local control has always been something I've cared a lot about and is a significant consideration going forward. But I've got the PW isolated on its own VLAN going through my OPNsense router, and the granularity of its perspective is I think pretty course. Given what I'm running I just don't think there's a whole lot, if anything, it can glean the power company couldn't already, it's pretty out there on the master panel so it doesn't even see just the house, use from the barn and office and so on is all mixed into the signal. Taking into account what was on offer and far tighter finances at the time I think I did the best I could.
This is also a case where I think some level of regulated, low granularity population data may be pretty important in terms of infra planning our shift to only renewables and a smarter grid. I'll have to keep thinking about that though.
>They may do this, but by their own terms they aren't obligated to
I'd have to double check if my terms from back then are different then what they offer now, but ultimately the fact remains that across hundreds of outages and blips over 8-9 years with a couple of devastating floods and storms in the mix it has never been an issue even once. These aren't megacorps, utilities here are pretty tiny by national standards and pretty responsive (as well as regulated).
>The state contracts them to provide the people with reliable power and you pay them for that service. They should be expected to reasonably deliver that in exchange. Installing their equipment inside people's homes can be part of how they manage that responsibility, but it's still their responsibility and they should compensate you for that and not expect you to pay them even more for the privilege of paying their costs and accepting liability.
GMP has I believe something like 10,000 miles of pole distribution lines for 265000 customers, but of course those customers are not evenly distributed, there are towns around here with literally double digits of people. And it's the biggest one, there are tons of smaller outfits and coops etc. "Reliable" doesn't mean "perfect" and never has, that's just not possible at the prices people can afford here.
I mean really, on some level everyone needs to be ready to contribute in general for life here sometimes. State is responsible for roads and such too, but if it's bad I and others get out our chainsaws (now electric! electric chainsaws are AWESOME) and winches and so on and get to work. State police provide coverage and will respond eventually, but it might be 30-120 minutes (or more sometimes). I've taken first responder courses, folks volunteer for fire departments and other roles, folks have guns. Others who can't do any of that can still bring people out clearing trees hot food and drinks and general support and that's a serious contribution and appreciated too. Dunno, not saying utilities shouldn't keep pushing hard and being pushed, nobody wants to be a floor mat, but I feel like they've been pretty solid and they really have been trying hard over the last few decades.
>It's honestly not a bad idea conceptually. It seems like it can have real benefits, but the terms are exploitative.
Some of your list feels like reasonable avenues for improvement, others feel totally unrealistic to a degree that it'd really end of restricting who could benefit. I don't think the juice would be worth the squeeze there. But BYOB is an option with a self-consumption plan, where rather then supplying power back you instead basically get disconnected from the grid during peak events, see [0]. The terms and conditions aren't nothing, but power infrastructure is pretty serious business and I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect the utility not to want some pretty clear control and terms around it. And if you want out of it looks pretty reasonable, 30 days notice and you pay back a prorated portion of upfront incentives and that's that.
Also, "bandwidth", seriously? I'm looking at Netflow for the electric infra VLAN and it's like, 1.5-4 kbps, with occasional spikes to... 25 kbps for like a second. Yeah we're the boonies and progress is slow, but nice outfits like NEK Broadband [1] have been working hard and we've got fiber now, and of course Starlink is an option, sometimes even cellular. But even on crappy old 5/1 ADSL like I had to live with for 20 years it's not much. Come on. Rural America isn't that far back, we've gotten a ways beyond 14.4k modems.
----
0: <a href="https://greenmountainpower.com/rebates-programs/home-energy-storage/bring-your-own-device/" rel="nofollow">https://greenmountainpower.com/rebates-programs/home-energy-...
1: <a href="https://get.nekbroadband.org/" rel="nofollow">https://get.nekbroadband.org/
dotancohen · · focus · HN ↗
Often people from different societies have difficulty understanding how anyone "could live like that" - in both directions.
tclancy · · focus · HN ↗
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
Also yes, paying taxes should entitle someone to basic minimums like the ability to pay for clean drinking water delivered to your tap, and reliable power delivered to your home. We aren't a developing country, we're the richest nation on Earth. The extent of the "effort on my part" should be limited to signing up with the utility company and paying my bills every month. Everything else is their job. It's what they are paid for. What "effort on your part" are you making in your life to help your water company? Your cable company?
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
According to the utility company you should have one anyway because you may not have access to the power available in your battery even when it is full. Even when you need it, they can decide to send it somewhere else.
> And I'm glad it wasn't only used for my needs. I like helping my neighbors, my town, and my state.
In this case you're also helping your utility company and being charged for the privilege. How often have they helped you with something you weren't paying them for?
> These aren't megacorps, utilities here are pretty tiny
Your energy company is a subsidiary of Énergir. It's the largest power company in Vermont providing service to the vast majority of the state. They also provide power for New York, Maine and Connecticut. Énergir is also the largest natural gas distribution company in Quebec. This is not a local mom and pop operation.
> I mean really, on some level everyone needs to be ready to contribute in general for life here sometimes. State is responsible for roads and such too, but if it's bad I and others get out our chainsaws (now electric! electric chainsaws are AWESOME) and winches and so on and get to work.
How much do your neighbors charge you when you help clear the roads with your chainsaws? Do they make you legally liable for any damage to cars if there are accidents on that road after you helped clear it? Would it be absurd if they did?
If you really want to volunteer to help host/power/secure/connect your utility company's infrastructure for them that's very sweet of you, I'm sure that will save them a lot of money, but they are also charging you a bill to do it for them and then they're leaving you liable for things entirely outside of your control while also making you agree that you'll be responsible for any harm caused by their equipment. They aren't being your friend here. They aren't looking out for you. They aren't acting like a part of your community. They are charging you and your state money, externalizing some of their costs and risks by putting them onto you, and charging you thousands for that.
bluGill · · focus · HN ↗
The utility is well aware that power outages happen and make their customers mad. They want to solve them, but they also know cost matters and so that takes many ways to solve power outages out. Data used correctly from systems like this make power more reliable and it can be cost effective. By giving the utility access to this data they can better serve everybody.
Again, the key is that the data is used to serve everybody and not used for any of the abuses it can also be used for.
akoboldfrying · · focus · HN ↗
IIUC, the benefit for the customer is a battery backup that is much cheaper than buying the batteries themselves would be, plus the ability to make money when their battery is taken over for a few hours during occasional peak usage events. Provided the former override the latter, as seems to be the case, I don't see what the issue is.
I think you're claiming that battery backup shouldn't be needed in the first place if the power company was doing their job properly, since then there wouldn't be frequent outages in the first place. But I gather that this just isn't practical in rural Vermont. To put it another way: In that environment, a power company guaranteeing 99.999% uptime could not offer this at a price that is acceptable to most customers. So the equilibrium naturally shifts towards citizens tolerating more frequent outages than would be tolerated in, say, central NYC, and/or paying for mitigations like generators or batteries.
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
They don't get a battery backup. The utility company gets a battery backup and the customer pays a large percentage of that cost. The utility company isn't obligated to let the consumer who paid for part of that battery draw power from it, ever. They explicitly state that all the energy it stores is theirs, and that they can drain all of it away any time they want to.
Customers are being contractually obligated to shell out thousands of dollars, over a 10 year commitment they're punished for backing out of, obligated to not hold the utility company responsible for any damage they cause, obligated to take on a bunch of liability for things they have no control over, obligated to allow the company access to their property, obligated to allow the company access to use their internet service free of charge, and for all of that the utility company isn't obligated to do anything but install the company's equipment on the customer's property
All the customer gets is that maybe they'll be paid for the power the company takes from the battery (the company doesn't have to pay anything) and to maybe get to draw power from it if there's a service outage (the company isn't obligated to let them use any of it).
There are customers who say they are being paid for that energy and they have been able to use the power to avoid outages, and that's great, but that can change at any time and for any reason because the terms they agreed to don't obligate the utility to do either of those things. The terms explicitly say that all of the energy in the battery belongs to the utility company and they can use it however they see fit.
Maybe this utility company is the nicest company in the world. Maybe the utility company today would volunteer out of the kindness of their heart to rebuild someone's house if a software update causes the battery to catch fire and the customer's home burned to the ground along with everything in it, but the terms say they wouldn't have to do that and couldn't be made to. Maybe the company would never ever stop paying customers for the energy they take, or leave the customer without power while they drain the full battery to help restore service for businesses or wealthier customers. The terms would let them do those things though.
You shouldn't pay out thousands of dollars, take on a list of obligations, and expose yourself to huge risks and liabilities and then still be forced to just hope that the company will do the right thing, and keep doing the right thing for the next decade of your life. That's the problem.
akoboldfrying · · focus · HN ↗
> They don't get a battery backup.
The customer in effect gets a "probabilistic" battery backup -- whatever is in the battery at outage time. As you say, the terms (para. 15) explicitly allow that GMP can use the entire battery at any time; it seems I was confusing those terms with different ones ("at most 36 times per year") mentioned by another commenter, which were actually for a different company, in NC. This is not as good as a battery that you fully control, and it would have been nice to see GMP place limits on its usage level in the terms, but it's much better than nothing, as made clear by commenter xoa and the customers interviewed in TFA. GMP wants high total charge levels in customer batteries, so their incentives are aligned with customers; the only potential misalignment I see is that it may not matter to GMP how that charge is distributed across customer batteries (to them, everyone at 50% charge may look identical to 50% of customers at full charge and 50% empty, but the former is much better from customers' perspective), but I also can't think of any reason why GMP would benefit from an unbalanced charge distribution, and maintaining rough balance seems straightforward, so I don't think that would be a conflict in practice.
> maybe get to draw power from it if there's a service outage (the company isn't obligated to let them use any of it).
This is simply wrong. Para. 15 explicitly obligates GMP to permit this:
> As Lessee, Customer’s control over the Energy Storage System is limited to its usage as a backup power source in the event of a power outage up to the point that the battery is completely depleted.
Outages are obviously "bidirectional", so there's no conceivable way for GMP to draw on the battery in the event of one anyway!
I didn't see any mention of net metering or payment for exporting electricity back out to the grid, which surprised me. Without such an agreement in writing, it seems unlikely that GMP would ever pay for this access, so I agree with you there.
The internet usage clause is reasonable and common sense, IMO. I suppose it would be better to include an upper limit to make sure that it isn't hogging the connection, but it would be my very last concern.
The only clause that I really disliked was para. 20, clearing them of any liability for damages caused by the battery.
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
That doesn't bind GMP, it binds the customer. It simply limits their control over the battery to a specific use under a specific circumstance. I suspect that GMP will often be left without the ability to stop users from using their battery as a backup in the event of a power outage (depending on the nature of the outage) but they make it clear that when they can, they are entitled to by adding:
"GMP shall have the ability to continuously utilize the Energy Storage System at its sole discretion for the Term and has the right to use all the energy in the battery."
It does state that the system they install will have "whole- home backup power capability" and the program description includes the line "The Energy Storage System can [note CAN and not WILL] provide Customer with whole-home backup power during a Grid outage."
I think there's a fair expectation that at least some of the time the battery will work to supply whole-home backup power when there's an outage. They were pretty careful to pepper in enough weasel words throughout to keep their options open when they have options at all though. Like you said, outages can be "bidirectional". A cut cable isn't going let stored power out any more than it lets the power in.
The biggest concern I can see is power being shifted to keep the lights on for specific customers while leaving others with power-filled batteries in the dark or draining faster. We already see a lot of inequalities with how power companies treat people. Wealthier neighborhoods are often less likely to experience outages, get their power restored sooner, are more likely to get upgrades/maintenance, etc. Having these batteries in people's homes, especially those farther out from critical infrastructure (which usually gets top priority from utility companies) can actually help with that, but only if the utility company plays fair. It'd be nice to see something explicit that would give priority to the energy stored in the battery to the homeowner who helped pay for it in times of need.
> The internet usage clause is reasonable and common sense, IMO. I suppose it would be better to include an upper limit to make sure that it isn't hogging the connection, but it would be my very last concern.
I'm glad that reportedly the bandwidth usage isn't heavy at least. It'd be nice if they segmented off the device for customers when they installed the service. Not many users will be able to isolate their home network from the utility's equipment. I could see these batteries being a good target for hackers to get a foothold into a person's network and I've seen examples where companies use their access to a person's home network as a way to collect more consumer data through scans.
I'm also curious to know whats in the privacy policy they won't show you until after they show up to install the device.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
jeffbee · · focus · HN ↗
Avicebron · · focus · HN ↗
jeffbee · · focus · HN ↗
Avicebron · · focus · HN ↗
adrianN · · focus · HN ↗
avianlyric · · focus · HN ↗
With consumer units, you can reasonably expect that they’ll operate with zero maintenance and zero direct supervision for a decade plus. If the cost of those units is low enough, that reduced operational burden starts looking very attractive, especially if you want to scale up your battery capacity across your network very quickly.
thfuran · · focus · HN ↗
I highly doubt it. You can reasonably expect one hard drive to operate just fine for years, but data centers have to constantly replace failed drives, and that would still be true if they they put each one in a different building. It would just cost a lot more to do.
mschuster91 · · focus · HN ↗
jeffbee · · focus · HN ↗
MentalM · · focus · HN ↗
It is not when we are talking about government subsidies intended to redistribute wealth from the poor to the middle class.
jeffbee · · focus · HN ↗