[JuniperMesos]

As a YIMBYist who can't afford a house where I live, I actively want big money to overrule local government regulators at will, because big money developers make their big money by building houses and local regulators are responding to the NIMBYist concerns of ordinary homeowners that result in insufficient housing getting built. A local government regulator fighting for the interests of local homeowners does not necessarily do what is in my own long-term interest, and I don't necessarily want them to win against big money.

> Here in Nevada, (Warran Buffet owned) NV Energy already has approval for a "Demand Charge" that will increase rates for everyone, and further reduce the ridiculously low amount of money that consumers get for selling their excess solar power back to the grid.

Excess solar power generated by ordinary consumers is probably being priced correctly - excess solar power generation happens during the day when the sun is high, which means there's a glut of power because everyone with a solar panel generates a lot then. Solar power is scarcer and therefore more expensive when the sun is not shining bright, and this is not the time when customers are selling excess power back to the grid. Generous rates for buying power from customers were an effective subsidy to get people to install home solar panel systems, and that subsidy works less and less well as more and more power on the grid gets generated via solar panels and the difference in grid-wide power availability at different times based on the height of the sun becomes more and more important.

[tokioyoyo]

There's 'big money' and, there's also "BIG MONEY". Former doesn't always win against the government, the latter pretty much overrules anything.

[hnthrowaway0315]

The super riches are already winning so many times. The US is missing regulations, and at the same time over-regulate areas that it should not.

[JuniperMesos]

I don't think this is particularly due to the super-rich, over everyone else in society. A lot of the bad regulations I care most about are driven by ordinary people who own their own home and not a whole lot else, and are sincerely-supported by many people I know personally.

[oivey]

> Excess solar power generated by ordinary consumers is probably being priced correctly

Do you have any evidence for this position? Is this just regulations giving you bad vibes? I’m pretty sure everyone was quite aware the sun doesn’t shine at night whenever the previous rules and regulations were written. Your analysis isn’t breaking new ground.

[AnthonyMouse]

Demand for electricity is higher during the day. The previous rules were written when solar was a smaller part of the grid and "generates during the day" was an advantage.

As the amount of solar increases, the supply during the day goes up, so the daytime price starts going down. Meanwhile the highest demand period is just after sunset, so that's going to be when the price is highest because not only is that the highest demand, that's when solar generation is zero. And it's when people selling solar during the day are trying to buy power back. But now they're selling low and buying high.

[roenxi]

> I’m pretty sure everyone was quite aware the sun doesn’t shine at night whenever the previous rules and regulations were written.

And because they knew, the regulations I've heard of set some sort of statutory price that consumers get. This is because it's been fairly likely from the start that if the price is set by the market with reference to the value of the electricity, consumers won't get anything. Because their contribution is largely worthless and occasionally value-destructive.

[fennecfoxy]

Lmao. I dislike hypocritical NIMBYs as much as any other person but you surely cannot believe that "big money" will do anything beneficial for you.

Big money isn't big money because they're doin' good out there, just sayin. Welcome to late stage capitalism prepare yourself for classics like "Ow! My balls!" and "It's what plants crave".

[PeterStuer]

Typical: YIMBY that does not own a back yard. Makes it just another YIYBY.

[moistoreos]

Hey bud, do you happen to know when the demand for power is the highest? It happens to be.... gasp.... when the sun is highest in the sky.

Just take a look at ERCOT's website: https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards/supplyanddemand

[harry19023]

That's just not true. Here's the California grid from yesterday: https://www.gridstatus.io/live/caiso?date=2026-05-09

Peak demand is 6 PM when everyone gets home from work and turns on the air conditioning.

EDIT: Your chart shows the same thing? Demand is highest at 6 pm, not noon.

[moistoreos]

Ah, yes. California. Where large swathes of costal areas hover between 60ºF and 80ºF. We are talking about Nevada the weather of locality matters and where it can be supremely hot.

[harry19023]

You posted the Texas grid, I posted the California grid. Here's the NW grid which includes Nevada. Same thing, demand peaks around 6PM when people get home and turn on their houses.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/el...

[TJSomething]

I'm not sure that follows as the biggest driver. 4 PM is nearly as high as as 6 PM. You would expect a big jump at 5 PM, but the biggest jump is from noon to 2 PM. Just looking at today's temperatures on my front porch in Reno, it was 93°F at 2 PM, it peaked at 95°F at 3:30 PM, and it didn't fall back down to 93°F until 5 PM. Some of that sustained power usage probably is people getting home, but a lot of it is A/C.

[close04]

In France there are 2 peaks in a working day, one around 12:00-13:00, and one around 19:00. On weekends there's a third peak around 22:00-23:00.

https://www.rte-france.com/en/data-publications/eco2mix/elec...

[ZeroGravitas]

Unless the graph explicitly states that it includes distributed behind-the-meter solar, then any dip in demand that looks like the inverse of solar is probably grid demand being replaced with local generation on homes and factory roofs or industrial land.

People regularly use the demand being supplied by solar to argue that solar isn't delivering when people need electricity.

The yearly peak grid demand in California is moving later in the day and later in the year due to this effect.

[harry19023]

That's the whole point. The OP was lamenting that consumers are getting less for selling their behind-the-meter solar, but if everyone has behind-the-meter solar then that solar is cheap to worthless when the sun is shining. And that's a good thing! The sun is free, all of us utilizing it during the day for free means electricity is cheap during the day. It's when the sun sets and all that solar goes offline and demand rises that electricity gets expensive again.

[ZeroGravitas]

You said this wasn't true:

> you happen to know when the demand for power is the highest? It happens to be.... gasp.... when the sun is highest in the sky.

But it mostly is.

But yeah if everyone has solar then it's all producing at this time and the very high production can exceed the high demand.

[JuniperMesos]

No, the chart you posted clearly shows that in Texas demand for power is highest at around 5-6pm, which is decidedly not when the sun is highest in the sky - it's when the sun is setting and the workday is ending but people are still active and doing things, many of which require electric power - perhaps more electric power than they would use during the workday depending on what the thing is. This is precisely the Duck Curve observation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve) - which was originally coined with respect to the California electricity market but is applicable in many other markets.

[light_hue_1]

> As a YIMBYist who can't afford a house where I live, I actively want big money to overrule local government regulators at will, because big money developers make their big money by building houses and local regulators are responding to the NIMBYist concerns of ordinary homeowners that result in insufficient housing getting built. A local government regulator fighting for the interests of local homeowners does not necessarily do what is in my own long-term interest, and I don't necessarily want them to win against big money.

I am A YIMBY too. But no, big money is not on your side. Big money wants to make money, not make your life better. It would like to build as much as possible for as little as possible, at the lowest quality possible, and sell it for an extremely high price. This isn't good for any of us.

[JuniperMesos]

A big money developer who "build[s] as much as possible" absolutely makes my life better compared to the 70 year old woman in my neighborhood who has owned her house for decades and lobbies local government officials to legally prevent anyone from building anything anywhere near here. No house a big money developer actually builds can possibly be as bad quality as the absence of a house.

I don't want said 70 year old neighbor (or in general people who think like her) to be able to successfully lobby local government officials to prevent the construction of data centers either. I use the internet myself, so it benefits me if companies can build internet infrastructure without locals raising ideologically-motivated opposition to it.

[lotsofpulp]

>Big money wants to make money, not make your life better. It would like to build as much as possible for as little as possible, at the lowest quality possible, and sell it for an extremely high price. This isn't good for any of us.

Small money also wants to work as little as possible and sell it for an extremely high price. Selling maximal ROI is mostly a human thing. Also, there are “big money” developers building higher quality houses at higher prices, just like any other business.