3 ms·
The tricky thing with paying for grid defections would be holdouts. If a group of 8 neighbors take a payout to leave, but #9 doesn't, suddenly the utility lost
by froindt 7y ago
The tricky thing with paying for grid defections would be holdouts. If a group of 8 neighbors take a payout to leave, but #9 doesn't, suddenly the utility lost most of its revenue but maintains most of the same infrastructure.
And the holdout might need really reliable electricity for medical devices or similar.
I wonder what "fair" mechanism could be employed to handle things optimally?
- torpfactory 7y agoI feel like there should be a business model where the customer pays a monthly fee for service but the service is "install and maintain solar + battery". As long as it is a similar price to grid connection, basically just force all users who would be defecting onto the new business model. I think customers would protest a lot less in that circumstance. As for medical devices and whatnot: the grid is already not 100% reliable. The replacement would need to be of comparable reliability, but I don't think the threshold is 100% reliable. If you've got medical devices critical to your continued existence, you need more redundancy than either the grid or solar+battery. I don't see is a particularly fair model for stuff like this. Just a bunch of bad or worse options. Honestly I think once cost parity is achieved, a lot of these questions will evaporate.