[abakker]

It is certainly possible. The challenge when doing this is that the solar installation that you put in to be able to generate during the winter months ends up being MUCH bigger, and more costly. Most of the ROI models on solar assume that when you do this, you'll be able to "sell" your excess capacity back to the grid.

Many/Most systems I have seen in southern California contribute energy to the grid directly, and power is still purchased through the grid like normal. When your panel is generating, the power you generate and consume balance out and your power is "free", but you don't consume power straight from your panel (a flawed representation of how electric flows, I know).

The challenge with these implementations are that the grid itself handles the power generated by panels, and can't turn them off. The reason they do the installations this way is so homeowners stay connected to the grid to even out their energy spikes, but also to save the homeowner the cost of battery storage systems. In this case, the grid acts as "storage" by accounting, rather than by real storage of energy.

[maratd]

This is easily solved if the utilities get properly involved.

My utility has been pushing a thermostat that they provide at no cost and will even give you a bit of cash for installing. The reason is that this thermostat is hooked up to the utility through the internet and can be shut off by them during a spike or an emergency.

I just got new smart electric meters installed too.

If those meters were a little bit smarter, connected over the net, and had the ability to restrict flow ... they could easily install devices on a per house basis that would protect the grid. That would put the ball back in the homeowners court and the homeowner can implement a solution to shut off the panels when the utility isn't interested in purchasing power back.