3 ms·

By fighting rooftop solar, utilities are setting themselves up for worse to come

5 points by jrs235 11y ago

ChuckMcM 11y ago
I find this an interesting situation because it so clearly illustrates regulatory capture. In theory, utilities are granted a monopoly because it is in the public interest to have a common infrastructure. In exchange for that monopoly they accept public oversite from the government in the form of some sort of commission or regulatory agency. And since this is all operating for the public good, the regulatory agency should adopt and enforce regulations that are in the public interest. Except that in both Hawaii and Nevada (the most recent example), the regulatory bodies are adopting regulations that are actually counter to the public interest to protect the business interests of the monopoly! That can only happen when the regulatory body "Switches sides" and starts operating to service the interests of the regulated rather than the people who gave them the power to regulate. Look for some interesting fireworks here, and perhaps some federal action.
- jrs235 11y ago
  Here in the Midwest there are numerous multi multi million dollar transmission line projects in the works. Recently, where I'm located, the utilities have asked to raise the fixed monthly connection fee while reducing the variable consumption rate(s). The claim for the lines is for grid reliability and to transfer solar and wind from the west (Dakotas) to the Midwest and Great Lake States. Those that stand to benefit the most from this are the large consumption users which tend to be large corporations, particularly manufacturing and industry. Those harmed by the change in rates tend to be those on fixed incomes and those who invested in energy efficiency or who are energy conscious and reduce their own use. Folks will argue that the benefit to large consumers is also a benefit to the small users. I find it ironic that those that support the big businesses in this case tend to scream "FREE MARKET! CAPITALISM!". Well, the free market and capitalism should mean they shouldn't get to be "free loaders" on the people. And yes, the products and services the big consumers produce would cost more to consumers. But that's how the free market and capitalism works! They should cost more to the people that buy and benefit from those goods instead of having everyone subsidize the the cost of their products.
- jrs235 11y ago
  The next 20 years will be interesting. Centralized, Goliath grid energy is a slow and wailing dying dinosaur. It'd will be interesting to see how investors recoup their costs for these massively expensive infrastructure projects and if the government and regulators will let the investors lose their investment money.

5 points by jrs235 11y ago

I find this an interesting situation because it so clearly illustrates regulatory capture. In theory, utilities are granted a monopoly because it is in the public interest to have a common infrastructure. In exchange for that monopoly they accept public oversite from the government in the form of some sort of commission or regulatory agency. And since this is all operating for the public good, the regulatory agency should adopt and enforce regulations that are in the public interest. Except that in both Hawaii and Nevada (the most recent example), the regulatory bodies are adopting regulations that are actually counter to the public interest to protect the business interests of the monopoly! That can only happen when the regulatory body "Switches sides" and starts operating to service the interests of the regulated rather than the people who gave them the power to regulate. Look for some interesting fireworks here, and perhaps some federal action.

jrs235 11y ago
Here in the Midwest there are numerous multi multi million dollar transmission line projects in the works. Recently, where I'm located, the utilities have asked to raise the fixed monthly connection fee while reducing the variable consumption rate(s). The claim for the lines is for grid reliability and to transfer solar and wind from the west (Dakotas) to the Midwest and Great Lake States. Those that stand to benefit the most from this are the large consumption users which tend to be large corporations, particularly manufacturing and industry. Those harmed by the change in rates tend to be those on fixed incomes and those who invested in energy efficiency or who are energy conscious and reduce their own use. Folks will argue that the benefit to large consumers is also a benefit to the small users. I find it ironic that those that support the big businesses in this case tend to scream "FREE MARKET! CAPITALISM!". Well, the free market and capitalism should mean they shouldn't get to be "free loaders" on the people. And yes, the products and services the big consumers produce would cost more to consumers. But that's how the free market and capitalism works! They should cost more to the people that buy and benefit from those goods instead of having everyone subsidize the the cost of their products.
jrs235 11y ago
The next 20 years will be interesting. Centralized, Goliath grid energy is a slow and wailing dying dinosaur. It'd will be interesting to see how investors recoup their costs for these massively expensive infrastructure projects and if the government and regulators will let the investors lose their investment money.