> It seems you agree that 'essential' loads have much more value to you and others, but you're not willing to pay the value? what does taking what i wrote, the

> It seems you agree that 'essential' loads have much more value to you and others, but you're not willing to pay the value? what does taking what i wrote, then reworking the sentence to suit your purpose serve? I did not agree that essential loads have more "value"... you did. If you think that heating your home is not essential, come by in the winter and i can put a tent in the back yard for you. It reaches as low as -24C, but i'm sure you will be fine. If you think that people should be forced to pay more to heat their homes.. you are mistaken. No one should have to choose between food and heat and any program structured such that "essential costs more" will NEVER work. I said that it is UNFAIR to charge more for essential loads, and that if a program depends on "rebates" it is flawed. There are many other alternative solutions, such as what we have here via "time of use" billing that is also seasonally adjusted. this "pay more for essential services" logic is severely flawed, much as you twisting my words to suit your purpose was. the persons below really made the point when they wrote "It is both unethical and pointless to exploit inelastic demand " what you are proposing is unethical...