3 ms·

Perhaps, but if we want to dis-incentivize usage as a political policy, we can just increase the usage charge above from "next to nothing". For power, generati

Perhaps, but if we want to dis-incentivize usage as a political policy, we can just increase the usage charge above from "next to nothing". For power, generation costs in California run from $150/MWh to -$150/MWh: https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/prices.aspx https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/prices.aspx $0.15/kWh seems like enough to begin the dis-incentivizing of usage, and that can certainly be pushed up more.

hinkley 4y ago
So we’re going to reduce the hourly rate and charge a base fee, and then increase the hourly rate back to the old value? So you’re asking for a regressive rate in electricity. If your solution to a public policy issue is “why don’t we just” then you don’t understand the issue. I’m just pointing out externalities that you guys aren’t thinking about when shooting the shit about upcharging low income families and allowing the rich to get richer. You are contributing to the problems we complain about.
- secabeen 4y ago
  Certainly such a model is regressive, but it is in line with the actual costs of service. In my opinion, it's better to have a pricing model that reflects the actual costs of service, then an explicit subsidy to repair the regressivity issue, such as the Consumers Affordable Resource for Energy (CARE) Program in California. Using usage as a proxy for value-received from the grid worked fine when there was a monopoly provider, but with distributed solar being a thing, we have to move off of the model, or we end up with an even more regressive system. As I noted before, we use these systems for water, gas, and other utilities, so we have methods for addressing their natural regressiveness. Alternately, if you feel (and this is reasonable) that power should be a ubiquitous service provided to everyone, take over the grid, pay for maintenance and development of the grid with tax dollars, and bill only for generation/usage after a reasonable base allocation.

hinkley 4y ago

So we’re going to reduce the hourly rate and charge a base fee, and then increase the hourly rate back to the old value? So you’re asking for a regressive rate in electricity. If your solution to a public policy issue is “why don’t we just” then you don’t understand the issue. I’m just pointing out externalities that you guys aren’t thinking about when shooting the shit about upcharging low income families and allowing the rich to get richer. You are contributing to the problems we complain about.

secabeen 4y ago
Certainly such a model is regressive, but it is in line with the actual costs of service. In my opinion, it's better to have a pricing model that reflects the actual costs of service, then an explicit subsidy to repair the regressivity issue, such as the Consumers Affordable Resource for Energy (CARE) Program in California. Using usage as a proxy for value-received from the grid worked fine when there was a monopoly provider, but with distributed solar being a thing, we have to move off of the model, or we end up with an even more regressive system. As I noted before, we use these systems for water, gas, and other utilities, so we have methods for addressing their natural regressiveness. Alternately, if you feel (and this is reasonable) that power should be a ubiquitous service provided to everyone, take over the grid, pay for maintenance and development of the grid with tax dollars, and bill only for generation/usage after a reasonable base allocation.