It seems that big money can overrule local government regulators at will.
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.
The regulators didn't even resist, but there has now been so much backlash that they're finally scheduling public hearings after the fact. The announcement doesn't even mention the Demand Charge by name, and many consumers aren't even aware they they're about to be screwed.
One of the more obscene things about this new charge is that people with PV arrays will pay a fee for demanding more power from their own grid-tied systems.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
>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.
A lot of these rules happen at the regulatory level so lawmakers don't typically understand them in depth and get a lot of their explanations from utility lobbyists or the regulatory agency itself, if they even get involved or pay attention. The dramatic increases being directly linked to data centers is big enough for consumers to notice though.
That's why these independent counsels are pretty important such as the Maryland agency mentioned in this article. Since utilities at least on the distribution side are pretty much monopolies people have no choice but to pay the agreed rate.
> lawmakers don't typically understand them in depth and get a lot of their explanations from utility lobbyists or the regulatory agency itself, if they even get involved or pay attention.
I think you are being far too charitable here and in most cases it is weaponized ignorance at best.
Why dig into the minutia of the actual rules when you can just have the people donating money to you while benefiting from you not really fixing anything just tell you what you should do...?
I was being diplomatic for sure, but the regulators are often also pretty much working for the utility companies, sometimes quite illegally if you look at the HB6 scandal in Ohio where the head of the PUCO Sam Randazzo took massive bribes. He never faced the charges in court because he ended his life.
It's not obscene it's economics - supply and demand.
In power grid dominated by solar production the value of MWh of electricity is highest at night (because the supply from solar is zero), the value MWh of electricity is lowest at noon (because the supply from solar is maximal). So the residential grid-tied PV system is supplying power when the value of electricity is low and consuming power when the value of electricity is high.
Better solution than fix rates are digital smart meters which calculate using variable rates from electricity market.
One could also argue that negative electricity prices at noon are "obscene".
It doesn't make economic sense to push for more solar in a grid dominated by solar without additional investments into electricity storage and these investments have to be paid by someone.
Rollout of digital smart meters for households makes sense, so that people can make use of cheap electricity at noon. Large customers of electricity already now buy electricity either on electricity market at variable raters or have specific long-term contracts with electricity suppliers.
A price signal that noon is a great time to do AI inference. Unfortunately, people often want AI inference done at other times than noon, when electricity isn't negatively-priced because of abundant solar panels making it in broad sunshine.
I am sometimes wondering wouldn't the most economic thing to be to geographically distribute AI computing. Latencies can be large, but power could be cheaper if the loads are just moved around the globe as needed. This would mean that hardware sits powered off or in very low power state for larger chunk of day, but maybe that is acceptable in some scenario.
This is very likely already happening as customers of data centers doing various types of AI compute schedule their workloads to minimize their own costs.
If data center compute usage was systematically cheaper around local noon wherever in the world that data center happens to be, customers who could tolerate high latency would move their compute jobs from data center to data center as the earth spins to keep their compute happening in the cheap solar energy zone. Or maybe this is a pricing model that doesn't quite exist yet at scale, but that data center operators will introduce where and when they can as more and more solar generation for data centers comes online.
Or maybe it's not actually cost-effective because moving jobs into and out of data centers is so expensive that even the electricity/compute cost savings don't actually offset it. This is ultimately a question for the entity actually paying for the compute and responding to the price signal.
Friend of mine used to work in that space. He said there were people who were trying to do their job making sure the rate payers interests were being looked after. And people whose only interest was sucking up to the utilities in hope that they'll be rewarded by an offer to switch sides.
Similar patterns occurred with telecom corporations and communities that setup their own internet services. In some states the community ISP service model was either shut down, or restricted from expanding further due to lobbying from large corporations.
The pressure onto normal citizens will push and increase renewable energy build out (E-Car, Balcony solar/roof solar), to get away from these companies faster. Their utility will increase further, the pressure increases even more.
But people like Elon Musk are also very ignorant: He populates going into space to fix the energy topic, but apparently can't do math because it would be a lot cheaper to use batteries and solar and potentially also sell the heat the DCs produce instead of doing any of it in space.
It would even be easier to just buy something in new mexico, building out the energy infrastructure in a non livable area because latency doesn't matter that much with AI (not all use cases, but for that you have edge locations).
The richest and smartest people (excluding here elon musk) are not able to do a fast proper buildout? ... They could even just build a whole town with DCs and combine this with other energy intensive industries and sharing the prorcess heat reuse.
It’s not clear to me that the demand charge will cause bills to increase at all and, on its face, it makes sense to charge separately for peak power consumption as well as total energy consumption.
As someone with a demand charge, let me disagree. The worst single hour out of 60-70 throughout the month is used and in my market it’s about $19/kw demand. Turn on the AC once during that period, $80. Happen to have to have an oven or microwave going at the same time, you’re probably over $100. For one hour on one day of the month. Once you screw your month, you’re free to do it the rest of the month, but it only takes once.
What you have described is an obviously terrible system that doesn’t incentivize lower power consumption.
That’s not how it’s going to work in Nevada. It will be the highest 15 minute period of each day, so if you spread out your power usage you have room to game the rates and save money. And if you have a bad day it will only cost you a dollar or two and the next day is fresh.
Plus it’s not on top of the total consumption. The consumption rate is getting cut so that people should be paying roughly the same amount as before.
> What you have described is an obviously terrible system that doesn’t incentivize lower power consumption.
Doesn't it? Suppose you have a battery system which has access to the current price, so it charges when it's cheap and discharges when it's expensive. Then you don't pay the $19/kWh, you run on batteries then -- or sell at $19/kWh. And thereby turn a profit from installing the battery system, creating the incentive to reduce consumption when the price is high.
A system where you are incentivized to give up for the rest of the month if you were to high once doesn’t make sense. I am skeptical that the description was accurate.
If the demand charge is always from 4-7PM and you have at least three hours worth of batteries at your own peak usage then your usage during that period can always be zero, because you have the other 21 hours in the day to charge them back up for tomorrow.
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.
The regulators didn't even resist, but there has now been so much backlash that they're finally scheduling public hearings after the fact. The announcement doesn't even mention the Demand Charge by name, and many consumers aren't even aware they they're about to be screwed.
One of the more obscene things about this new charge is that people with PV arrays will pay a fee for demanding more power from their own grid-tied systems.
https://www.nvenergy.com/publish/content/dam/nvenergy/bill_i...