3 ms·

I mean - regressive taxes are bad. And this situation is essentially a regressive tax bundled into your power bill. Those with less means are forced to contin

I mean - regressive taxes are bad. And this situation is essentially a regressive tax bundled into your power bill. Those with less means are forced to continue buying power from utilities that are faced with shrinking customer bases, and which have high, long-term costs (Building power plants ain't cheap, and the costs to amortize the initial construction can't just be waved away because "there is more supply"...) Does that mean utilities aren't also angling to make the most of the situation? Of course not - they are businesses. But it does mean your black and white approach isn't really useful here - unless you're fine with poor people getting fucked. Maybe you are.

Kalium 5y ago
You're describing a death spiral, like has happened with car insurance in some places. As the costs on those still in the market go up and the costs of getting away from it come down, you can expect more and more people to go for the exit. Which sounds great, except it eventually leaves the few who can't get out stuck with the bill for the whole thing. I suppose the question is what we expect to make of the electrical grid in the future and how to pay for it. If the goal is to stop having a grid, the death spiral seems like a reasonable way to get there.
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  I suppose that may be the case - although I don't really see much solar specced for true off-grid use. I think the main point is that there are some negative consequences to allowing folks to opt out of what were previously shared utilities. Intentional or not - we had a form of social contract around pricing utilities, and that contract falls apart if the wealthiest can buy their way out of future payments. That doesn't mean I agree with the way that california (and many other states) are trying to hamfist those who buy solar into subsidizing utility companies, but it does mean there's a real conversation to be had that's not as simple as "Fuck the poor - I have mine". It's a similar conversation to the one around gas taxes. EV owners avoid paying them, but gas taxes are primarily funding road infrastructure, which is still shared by EV owners. So we had a social contract that worked, and we have to find a replacement. That's a real discussion, and not some simple black and white "They buy EV, they pay less" talk.
blitzar 5y ago
My black and white approach works just fine, I am more than happy to see the poor shareholders get fucked. Take away their monopoly and allow competition. It turns out it is already happening as community choice aggregators (CCAs) are all over the place and CEOs of companies with monopolies have proven worthy of their massive salaries by driving their business into bankrupcy. There is a reason for governments to exist beyond writing and regulating the creation of monopolies for private citizens to get rich. The costs to amortize the initial construction can't just be waved away because they paid all the money out in dividends and executive bonuses. These companies raked in money in bucketloads, agressively wrote down the construction costs and still had money left over to pay fat dividends.
- throwaway27727 5y ago
  OP did say poor people, not poor shareholders. Those least likely to own solar panels, i.e. those with less wealth (don't own their own houses, can't afford the capital for installation) are the ones who bear the cost of higher power plant prices.
  - blitzar 5y ago
    Who spoke up for those people before the shareholders stopped getting their fat dividend? Nobody. Now that the big corporations (and their shareholders) are struggling the crys from the rooftop is "wont somebobdy think of the poor people". How about putting back some of the excess profits from the monopoly that were taken every year till now?
    - redis_mlc 5y ago
      [dead]
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  Utility pricing is one of the most regulated things in the country. They don't "regulate the creation" of a monopoly for something like power - it's the definition of "natural monopoly". They regulate it so hard because capitalism DOES NOT WORK for this. Texas still tries it, and we're all seeing how well their underfunded, poorly maintained utilities blow up the second you get a slight perturbance in the natural order (ooops - hope joe blow likes his 16k power bill this month!) Also - Even if you were to buy true off-grid solar and completely avoid the grid for your home, there is literally no way you are not taking advantage of power provided by the power companies. It's in your street lights, your cell towers, your stores, your gas stations, your schools/libraries/gov buildings. It's running the pumps for your sewers, the traffic lights for your roads, the signage at your DMV. It's EVERYWHERE - And you are using it. So do I think this particular legislation is the right way to solve it? No - probably not. But I'm not an angry child who's unable to hold a real conversation around how we structure society.

Kalium 5y ago

You're describing a death spiral, like has happened with car insurance in some places. As the costs on those still in the market go up and the costs of getting away from it come down, you can expect more and more people to go for the exit. Which sounds great, except it eventually leaves the few who can't get out stuck with the bill for the whole thing. I suppose the question is what we expect to make of the electrical grid in the future and how to pay for it. If the goal is to stop having a grid, the death spiral seems like a reasonable way to get there.

horsawlarway 5y ago
I suppose that may be the case - although I don't really see much solar specced for true off-grid use. I think the main point is that there are some negative consequences to allowing folks to opt out of what were previously shared utilities. Intentional or not - we had a form of social contract around pricing utilities, and that contract falls apart if the wealthiest can buy their way out of future payments. That doesn't mean I agree with the way that california (and many other states) are trying to hamfist those who buy solar into subsidizing utility companies, but it does mean there's a real conversation to be had that's not as simple as "Fuck the poor - I have mine". It's a similar conversation to the one around gas taxes. EV owners avoid paying them, but gas taxes are primarily funding road infrastructure, which is still shared by EV owners. So we had a social contract that worked, and we have to find a replacement. That's a real discussion, and not some simple black and white "They buy EV, they pay less" talk.

blitzar 5y ago

My black and white approach works just fine, I am more than happy to see the poor shareholders get fucked. Take away their monopoly and allow competition. It turns out it is already happening as community choice aggregators (CCAs) are all over the place and CEOs of companies with monopolies have proven worthy of their massive salaries by driving their business into bankrupcy. There is a reason for governments to exist beyond writing and regulating the creation of monopolies for private citizens to get rich. The costs to amortize the initial construction can't just be waved away because they paid all the money out in dividends and executive bonuses. These companies raked in money in bucketloads, agressively wrote down the construction costs and still had money left over to pay fat dividends.

throwaway27727 5y ago
OP did say poor people, not poor shareholders. Those least likely to own solar panels, i.e. those with less wealth (don't own their own houses, can't afford the capital for installation) are the ones who bear the cost of higher power plant prices.
- blitzar 5y ago
  Who spoke up for those people before the shareholders stopped getting their fat dividend? Nobody. Now that the big corporations (and their shareholders) are struggling the crys from the rooftop is "wont somebobdy think of the poor people". How about putting back some of the excess profits from the monopoly that were taken every year till now?
  - redis_mlc 5y ago
    [dead]
horsawlarway 5y ago
Utility pricing is one of the most regulated things in the country. They don't "regulate the creation" of a monopoly for something like power - it's the definition of "natural monopoly". They regulate it so hard because capitalism DOES NOT WORK for this. Texas still tries it, and we're all seeing how well their underfunded, poorly maintained utilities blow up the second you get a slight perturbance in the natural order (ooops - hope joe blow likes his 16k power bill this month!) Also - Even if you were to buy true off-grid solar and completely avoid the grid for your home, there is literally no way you are not taking advantage of power provided by the power companies. It's in your street lights, your cell towers, your stores, your gas stations, your schools/libraries/gov buildings. It's running the pumps for your sewers, the traffic lights for your roads, the signage at your DMV. It's EVERYWHERE - And you are using it. So do I think this particular legislation is the right way to solve it? No - probably not. But I'm not an angry child who's unable to hold a real conversation around how we structure society.