• raynethackery@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    7 hours 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.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 hours 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.

    • zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours 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.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 hours 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?

    • hasnt_seen_goonies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 hours 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.