3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.