There was also a temporal dimension to participants’ views on the significance of curtailment. Several participants identified BESS as integral to curbing the impact of curtailment as it enables households to prioritise self-consumption over the export of the solar electricity they generate. While households generally viewed current BESS prices as unaffordable, there was an expectation that BESS prices would be reduced in the coming years. Echoing some of the arguments laid out in [25], some participants tended to see curtailment as a relatively short-term problem that will be remedied by increased BESS uptake by households, as well as larger grid-scale storage solutions. This was apparent in comments such as “this curtailment problem might be only a three-year issue if enough batteries are coming”. Finally, we noted that a few participants also saw curtailment as a less significant issue when placed against the long-term social and environmental benefits associated with the role of D-PV in the transition to renewable energy: "I think just from an environmental standpoint, I think you're doing more good in having it even though you may lose out financially possibly more frequently than you'd like, at least you're doing something good for the wider community and longevity-wise.”
5.4 Measures to address curtailment 5.4.1 Expectations of management of the grid The general sentiment among participants was that SA’s grid infrastructure is inadequate in its capacity to cope with the demands of D-PV adoption across the state. This was framed as a failure to anticipate the limitations of the network and undertake upgrades to accommodate the D-PV boom, particularly as incentives had been provided to drive adoption. One participant commented that “all this infrastructure needs to be and should be put in place beforehand” and another that “They’ve had a very long time to deal with this and they’ve done nothing, so I'm not sympathetic. Curtailment shouldn’t be acceptable at all”. Some participants attributed this to slow-footed responses on the part of state and federal governments to a rapidly changing energy landscape, as reflected in comments such as “I think it’s the government’s a bit surprised about how it’s happening, and don’t know how to deal with it.” Most participants intimated that they did not feel the grid was being managed in the best interests of households. Broadly, their comments in this respect pertained to the state of grid infrastructure and to energy prices, and implicated both SA Power Networks (SAPN) as well as energy retailers. However, it was not clear whether participants could distinguish between the roles and responsibilities of SAPN and those of energy retailers. We observed that while participants were familiar with a range of energy retailers, only a few were aware of SAPN and its role in SA’s energy system. There was some distrust in the management of SA’s grid infrastructure, with a few participants claiming that facets of SA’s grid infrastructure were “over-engineered” and that the costs of “unnecessary infrastructure” were being passed to the consumer while the requisite upgrades to accommodate D-PV adoption were proceeding at a slow pace e.g., grid-scale battery storage. Many of the participants’ expressions of distrust about the management of the grid referred to the effects of its privatization and the profit imperative that motivates the company within the sector. Distrust of retailers in particular was widely expressed as a perception that they are profiting from the low-cost power produced by households with D-PV systems: “they're buying a product at ten cents and selling it at anything upwards to 35 to 40 cents, that’s a nice margin. I'm not very sympathetic”. Some participants questioned the distribution of the burden of accommodating the conditions of overvoltage that is seeing some households’ exports curtailed, and considered that households are unfairly carrying this burden for having made a private investment that the network in fact benefits from: “it's not our fault that we've actually spent an investment amount of money to actually be involved with this all of a sudden”. This reflects one of the two “competing narratives” that [1] outline in relation to managing high voltage conditions, with some D-PV owners clearly suggesting that the balance of responsibility ought to lie with network service providers. It also aligns with arguments made by [25] 28 | P a g e
