No, the main barrier is concern over warranties for the vehicles.
In California, the law requires that vehicles still hold up to 70% of their original charge after 8 years and 75% in the future [1]:
> and d., to deteriorate to less than 70% for a warranty period of eight years or 100,000 miles, whichever first occurs, for 2026 through 2030 model years, and 75% for a warranty period of eight years or 100,000 miles, whichever first occurs, for 2031 and subsequent model years.
The law is unclear on bidirectional charging and whether this would give manufacturers an out. So they're cautious.
The point wouldn't be just for backup during outages. It would be growing your kWh of storage and doing daily TOU optimization. That increases the charge / discharge profile by a lot.
Though for an 80 kWh or larger battery, you're only likely to store up and discharge 10-ish per day maybe this way? (Assuming you have actual dedicated BESS, and this is supplementing that). Still that's ~30 cycles per year, which is nothing in the grand scheme of a vehicle battery.
You can't do just V2H, but Enphase and others have moved to simpler meter collars and grid disconnect for exactly this reason.
The main question for this thread remains who the Enphase / ISO standards friendly OEMs will be. With Tesla saying they'll allow it now, maybe others will get onboard, but the risk is that they wall themselves off.
What Enphase/ISO standard is this? I’ve never heard of it, and my attempt to search came up with nothing useful. There’s ISO 15518-20 bidirectional, which seems like it barely solves the problem.
It should be possible for a vehicle’s built-in inverter/charger, the EVSE, and the MID to all cooperate even if all three are from different vendors, but this is not a thing.
I think the standard is called "V2H". It's unobtanium from what I can tell.
If you have a Ford EV and a SunRun house, then it supposedly has worked for a few years now. (But that's just vehicle to home charging, not the "V2H" standard.)
I think you misread the post. He's saying that his ignorance was great, and maybe we should go back towards that.
I don't think Tumblr was particularly influential on the neighbors aspect. It never reached that kind of broad base. Twitter did though. Unless you just mean social media broadly?
Like you, I dislike the "talker" role for people on IC ladders. I often encourage those people to switch to Director+ roles.
The flip side is people who get and stay too far into the weeds. Solving little problems here and there is a great way to keep your finger on the pulse of what's actually going on.
But if you get totally bogged down in details, you are probably avoiding your leadership responsibilities. You should be observing the structural or strategic opportunities, and then dragging the org(s) in that direction.
Sometimes you do that by writing some code to prove a point, other times you do it by getting the nearest VP to take something on as a commitment. For me, personally, I find that the style of work waxes and wanes. Sometimes I get almost no code committed in a month :(. Other times, I get to go off and do some work that nobody else would have done.
I prefer the latter, but I respect that my job requires the former. Many of the people who you see spending all their time talking believe that's the most responsible use of their time. They might not personally prefer it!
This is one of the meandering arguments in the post. The whole executive team, in fact. But it doesn't compare how much other executives are making, etc.
I feel there's something in this article, but the meandering really ruins it. Either way, it's obvious that no earnings call would explain the metrics or decisions behind a layoff. But at 7% this is well within "Eh, we want to try a performance layoff and hope we get a better 7% of new hires".
It is too bad that people aren't more direct about this. But if folks remember Meta/FB's attempt at saying they did performance-based cuts, people ripped into them for labeling all the fired personnel as un-hireable. Earnings calls are heavy lawyered and regulated, so there's no reason to say anything.
In California, the law requires that vehicles still hold up to 70% of their original charge after 8 years and 75% in the future [1]:
> and d., to deteriorate to less than 70% for a warranty period of eight years or 100,000 miles, whichever first occurs, for 2026 through 2030 model years, and 75% for a warranty period of eight years or 100,000 miles, whichever first occurs, for 2031 and subsequent model years.
The law is unclear on bidirectional charging and whether this would give manufacturers an out. So they're cautious.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/13-CCR-19...
reply