This attempts to obtain the benefits without the costs and ongoing effort that commands value. California grid operators aren’t going to deal with system sizes this small (5-25kw) individually, hence the orchestrator (Tesla). You could build an orchestrator (I highly encourage such an endeavor for competitive reasons), but a standard alone is insufficient and of minimal value. Same reason you don’t get paid much to shed load (token amounts), Google via Nest does.

With that said, you can operate autonomously on the grid with solar and batteries (and the inverters will sync and follow grid voltage and frequency), and can even use export restrictions so you never send power back to the grid (curtailing) if desired; but energy marketplace participation is much more than that. Enphase and SolarEdge (inverter and energy system manufacturers) are positioned as competitors to Tesla for VPPs, but haven’t made the effort (that I’m aware of).

https://nest.com/energy-solutions/

It absolutely can be, in Australia we have several players involved and from what I understand, integration is dictated by the network operator. Eg, provided the battery used supports VPP, you can join under a number of different providers offering different contracts. See here [1] for a comparison table.

[1] https://www.solarquotes.com.au/battery-storage/vpp-compariso...

You can sell negative demand to the grid and get compensated for it with Ohmconnect:

https://www.ohmconnect.com/

Agree but we need to start somewhere and the government is setting these prices and making the policy so unless there’s regulatory capture I see no reason it wouldn’t be expanded once the model has been proved out.

Yeah. There should be some standard created for this.

You want an unregulated market like Texas?