This commentary is by Mike Lindner, a resident of Bondville.
Thank you, Tom Evslin, for some very good ideas in your opinion piece in VTDigger about making the electric grid more reliable, in part, by burying feed lines. Mr. Evslin explains the situation very well, but in mentioning GMP’s recent plan to provide (sell) battery backup to homes, he left off some contradictory problems within the program.
When GMP offered a Tesla (or another type to choose from,) battery for our house, the deal made absolutely no sense and we turned it down. We even called three different times to talk to three different people to make sure that the arrangement was being explained to us correctly, or to correct what seemed more likely — that we were not understanding it correctly. We assumed that our understanding was faulty, because, again, it just made no sense.
Here’s what we were told: We could purchase (Rent? Unclear) a battery backup for approximately $60 a month, which we would pay for approximately 10 years. Officially, we were told that GMP would take the battery back at that point, but unofficially, we were told by two of the three people that, because it would be too expensive to remove, they would leave the battery for us to continue using.
To start, that’s a very expensive proposition: approximately $6,000-$7,000 over 10 years. But, if it had made financial sense in the long run, perhaps it would’ve been worth it. Or perhaps if it provided us with reliable battery backup that had any usefulness when it might be needed by us, the expense would’ve been more rational. Still very expensive, but less than installing a new generator, for example, and keeping it ready for action when needed.
But the way it was described to us, by three separate people, included neither of these conditions. We would have to buy the electricity that would fill the battery at the regular rate. But, in a grid shutdown, GMP could draw that power out of our battery, not pay us for it, and use that power for the grid. We actually would have to guarantee them that we would keep the battery full, with financial penalties if we failed to do that. How we would fix the system if something went wrong was never fully explained to us. We’re not sure if GMP would take care of that or if we would have to arrange for that and pay for it ourselves. None of the three people we spoke to were clear about that. But all three repeated that we had approximately 30 days to correct any problem that might develop.
We would be buying power at the going rate, storing it in our home battery (which has some fire-danger potential), and then giving it away to GMP if/when it wanted to take it. We asked several different times to make sure we understood this correctly, and it was very clear that when GMP drew power from “our” battery, it was free of charge to GMP.
How in the world does that make sense to the consumer?
If GMP allowed us to use the power to run electric systems in our home, the single battery, of either type, we were told, would probably have enough power for about a day to a day and a half, but only if we were very careful about what appliances and systems were turned on. Each of the people we spoke with said it was imperative that we not use a clothes dryer, an oven, a toaster oven, an air conditioner, or other major draws of power. We would need to preserve that power for intermittent electric heaters in cold weather, and lights and internet, and refrigerator, and water pump, for the rest of the year. (Mr. Evslin is much better informed than we are, and explained that batteries cannot run heat pump heater systems at all, so, so much for battery backup in the winter.)
We were told by several solar installers that because our home is nestled within tall trees, unless we took them down or topped them off (ugh!), solar panels on our roof would be a waste of money. They wouldn’t generate sufficient power to use and reload a battery in a time-useful period, even in the summer when the sun is high in the sky.
So, what exactly was GMP offering? In our minds, nothing. Or, perhaps, the offering was virtue-signaling that we were participating a new “way.”
To pay approximately $6,000 to $7,000 over 10 years and then give away the power that we purchased if GMP wanted to take it doesn’t seem to us to be reasonable, useful, or fair. If the power used to fill the battery was free, then of course allowing GMP to take it would be reasonable. Our $60 per month would seem like a reasonable “insurance” cost to be able to use that power, some of the time, if needed by us. Or, if GMP paid us what we had paid to fill the battery, then again it would seem fair. However, they were explicit that neither of these cost arrangements was the way this program was set up.
If we are serious about shifting away from fossil fuels and electrifying our homes, businesses and transportation systems, we have to do better than this.
It’s just common sense that we will have to generate power in a “green” manner, and then send it to homes, businesses and factories, which can use it and store it for times of grid failure. Making our homes into off-site storage facilities for GMP’s grid, at our expense, just doesn’t seem to be the way to go.
We can, and should, do all of this decarbonization on a massive scale, and eventually we will have to, but this program through GMP does not seem to be a good “first step.“
