• raynethackery@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    1 day ago

    Why don’t we just change the revenue model for power companies. I understand they need money to maintain the infrastructure and pay employees. If power generation becomes so cheap that it can’t sustain the company then don’t rely on that for revenue. I’d rather pay a flat rate for the infrastructure and operating costs than a fluctuating generation charge. And public utilities should not be for profit.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Ohio does something like that. We have separate contracts with a heavily regulated grid operator for distributing power, and our choice of generation companies for providing power.

      The grid operator does our metering and billing, but forwards our generation charge to the provider we select.

      • ysjet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Considering how horribly corrupt PUCO is- part of quite literally the largest modern bribery scandal (possibly the largest in the history) of the US, lets maybe not use Ohio as an example here.

        For context for everyone else, this was so bad republicans literally threw a senior republican politician (sitting state representative, former speaker of the house) in jail for a 20 year sentence.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      1 day ago

      Many places already do charge a “line charge” if you have solar power and use little or no utility company power. You pay for being hooked up to the grid even if you barely use it.

      • Enekk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 hours ago

        This is how it works in my area. I pay about $12/mo in fees, the rest is handled by solar. They don’t pay me for excess solar, instead I get credit (in kWh, not dollars, thankfully) for it and any electricity I use at night or in the winter comes from that pool. Essentially, it makes the power company a big battery for me.

      • TrumpetX@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        This. This is the way. It solves this problem completely, but utilities somehow refuse it. It’s almost like their argument is not in good faith …

    • zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      When I got solar panels on my previous home there was a $5 a month line charge. That when went up to $8 the next year, then $10, then closer to $20. The power company (Duke Energy in case anyway wants to the shitty company’s name) was determined to make it as painful as possible for people to use Solar. They were also apparently responsible for pushing to get it illegal in that area to go “off grid” and to have a cap on the amount of solar power a home could generate. At now point did these line changes stop them from raising the normal power usage rates mind you, this was just an extra “fuck you” from them.

    • hasnt_seen_goonies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s what your public service commission is for! (In most states). They come up with how the costs of the utility gets passed to consumers. I agree that making sure that infrastructure costs get passed to people who have solar panels, especially if they are relying on that infrastructure at sun-not-being-in-sky hours.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      If power generation becomes so cheap that it can’t sustain the company then don’t rely on that for revenue.

      I’m not aware of anywhere power generation is that cheap yet. That may be a problem for the future when commercial fusion is viable, but thats likely a lifetime away.

      I’d rather pay a flat rate for the infrastructure and operating costs than a fluctuating generation charge.

      I think everyone would, but the cost for generation is always fluctuating because the variation in the market for the fuels that generate electricity, supply, and demand of electricity on the market. If its a flat rate, and that rate is below the cost of generating the electricity, who pays?