4 ms·
> I don't know what the right answer is. You have to unbundle the two different costs: 1) Infrastructure cost. It costs a fixed amount to connect someone to
by bsder 5y ago
> I don't know what the right answer is.
You have to unbundle the two different costs:
1) Infrastructure cost. It costs a fixed amount to connect someone to the always-on grid. This needs be set.
2) Consumption cost. It costs a different amount to consume produced electricity.
The problem is that the panel owners are going to get very cranky (as you see in this article) when that happens because maintaining the grid is quite a bit more expensive than the production costs and they're going to lose their cost benefit.
- philipkglass 5y agoPanel owners aren't the only group that would get cranky about unbundling. Some non-solar consumers also reap effective subsidies from bundling costs into per-unit charges. Rural customers in low density areas would have higher bills if they paid for infrastructure explicitly. So would customers in dense areas who consume only a little electricity each month but still need the infrastructure to work around the clock. Customers who live in urban or suburban areas and consume a lot of electricity would see their bills fall. Since this latter group tends to be more affluent than the previous two groups, charging each customer proportionally to their incurred costs is also likely to be perceived as unfair.
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoIf we are going to subsidize certain groups, let’s make it explicit and subsidize the poor instead.