[gpm]

The systems discussed in the article aren't necessarily selling excess power back to the grid, but they are sending it back to the grid (possibly for free). Because they work by pumping power into a wall socket.

They do so responsibly (fancy electronics that turn them off when the grid goes down). But it is the case where you are acknowledging that extra regulatory criteria make sense.

[AnthonyMouse]

But in that case the regulations would only have to apply to plugging in something that doesn't do that. There shouldn't be any forms or approvals or fees for someone who buys a product that does.

[gpm]

I agree there shouldn't be, but I don't think it's surprising that in many places there are. It takes active work for the regulator to look at the product and say "this design is sound, we're sure it won't kill anyone".

[AnthonyMouse]

It takes active work to do that but not to manually approve zillions of individual installations?

[kragen]

The zillions of individual installations probably aren't actually getting approved, manually or otherwise.

[AnthonyMouse]

Not if the purpose of the regulations is to thwart them, no. But those are the rules that ought not to be.

[kragen]

Purpose, ought, shouldn't, shouldn't, sense. These are words of minimal relevance to regulations and bureaucracy, which have internal incentive structures that rarely align with any kind of human morality.