California Income-based electric bills(canarymedia.com)
canarymedia.com
California Income-based electric bills
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-equity/income-based-electric-bills-the-newest-utility-fight-in-california
9 comments
Nuclear would be more expensive than the solar, wind and battery storage tech we’re building out now. Please do some research before you comment on posts here, this isn’t X.
Renewables don't scale and don't have the energy density to satisfy the demand that would require replacing fossil fuels. It's not even close. We don't know when that new battery tech will be ready, it could easily be another decade or more... so the real question is do we want to risk climate change more and more, or should we use nuclear to replace fossil fuels immediately while the renewable tech matures.
California gets most of its electricity from renewables, a small amount of nuclear and the balance is natural gas and imports. https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html
Even in summer CAISO admit it's only getting 47% from renewables. YTD from the December report is 35%
https://www.caiso.com/market/Pages/ReportsBulletins/Renewabl...
https://www.caiso.com/market/Pages/ReportsBulletins/Renewabl...
Only 47%. lol OK. Let’s check back in five years from now and see where CA is at.
I’ve explained here before how the cost of installations like tesla megapacks we have in CA + solar is still significantly cheaper than nuclear. With a much faster ROI.
Nuclear makes no financial sense in CA.
Nuclear makes no financial sense in CA.
Plus no radioactive waste to manage for thousands of years, which no one seems to factor into the cost.
Cheap solar is a meme. Zero solar farms can provide their sticker output overnight after an overcast winter day. Most can't provide their sticker output all night after a sunny summer day! Of course, these shortfalls can't result in blackouts, so instead we simply keep extra backup capacity on standby. The studies never price this in, but you can rest assured that the energy companies do.
Thankfully, California's main problems in the southern California region is the need for electricity to run air conditioners during the day, so that's not the worst problem. Nuclear would be better but there are other problems with it that make it unviable.
California's own regulations will soon be adding a lot of evening/night-time demand [0]. Surely it's a problem that a huge amount of demand will be coming online just as solar output is falling to nil?
Nuclear plants have been powering France for 50 years, of course it is viable!
[0] https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/29/us/cal...
Nuclear plants have been powering France for 50 years, of course it is viable!
[0] https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/29/us/cal...
Nuclear is only expensive because we've spent decades bureaucratically strangling it with red tape.
The technology exists to safely do nuclear at low cost. We just need to remove the billions of dollars wasted in intentionally-bad regulatory processes that were written into law to prevent nuclear from being successful.
The technology exists to safely do nuclear at low cost. We just need to remove the billions of dollars wasted in intentionally-bad regulatory processes that were written into law to prevent nuclear from being successful.
There are only a few countries that can deal with their nuclear trash in a semipermanent solution and those never had much and are relativ save from problems that could happen.
pretty much nothing the rotten state of California does should constitute a surprise to anyone anymore
It's not supply that's the main driver of costs:
One of the biggest such costs in California is the billions of dollars being spent on hardening and burying power lines to reduce the risk of them sparking wildfires. Utilities are also bearing the costs of compensating the victims of wildfires caused by poorly maintained grid equipment
One of the biggest such costs in California is the billions of dollars being spent on hardening and burying power lines to reduce the risk of them sparking wildfires. Utilities are also bearing the costs of compensating the victims of wildfires caused by poorly maintained grid equipment
That's part of supply. It's how the energy is supplied to the customer. Mismanagement of the supply includes both the wild fires caused by not clearing the dry brush, the poor maintenance of the grid, and the shutting down of nuclear plants without building new ones. All of this affects how much energy people are getting and increases prices. If at least we had a good production by building nuclear, the other factors would be alleviated.
>Build more nuclear!!
The private sector is uninterested in such long term ROI so "building more buclear" would require a major expansion of public investment. Would you support that? If so, the next question is whether that investment is delivered to the private sector as a subsidy or whether the infrastructure will be built and maintained publicly, because the former has a terrible track record while the latter has shown great historical success (France, Germany, and even the US) but is not in the imaginations of the current ruling class. What do you prefer?
The private sector is uninterested in such long term ROI so "building more buclear" would require a major expansion of public investment. Would you support that? If so, the next question is whether that investment is delivered to the private sector as a subsidy or whether the infrastructure will be built and maintained publicly, because the former has a terrible track record while the latter has shown great historical success (France, Germany, and even the US) but is not in the imaginations of the current ruling class. What do you prefer?
Yeah I would support public investment in nuclear. I think it would be good to at least explore the options, build smaller nuclear facilities if possible, learning along the way. Renewables are still great for smaller use cases, and it can continue improving.
I think either way it has to be a collab. between private and public sectors because of the magnitude of the risk, which in theory is largely understood but in practice people can make mistakes and those will be costly. Ultimately this would only be done because of climate change, otherwise we could just take our time switching to renewables.
I think either way it has to be a collab. between private and public sectors because of the magnitude of the risk, which in theory is largely understood but in practice people can make mistakes and those will be costly. Ultimately this would only be done because of climate change, otherwise we could just take our time switching to renewables.
> This would be the final straw for me and I would have to move states.
There will still be 39,000,000+ people left in the state if you do.
There will still be 39,000,000+ people left in the state if you do.
Explain the nuclear fixation please.
The construction of new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia provides a real-world example to re-evaluate the costs associated with building nuclear power versus a combination of solar power and battery storage.
The Plant Vogtle expansion involved the construction of two new reactors, Units 3 and 4, which faced significant delays and cost overruns. Initially estimated to cost around $14 billion with an expected operational start in 2016, the project's expenses ballooned to over $30 billion, more than double the original estimate. This increase does not include an additional $3.68 billion paid by the original contractor, Westinghouse, to the owners after going bankrupt, which brings the total spending to more than $34 billion. The construction started in 2009, with Unit 3 reaching "initial criticality" in 2023, marking the beginning of a self-sustaining nuclear fission reaction. Unit 3 is expected to come into service in mid-2023, with Unit 4 following in late 2023 or early 2024 [1](https://www.gpb.org/news/2023/05/25/georgia-nuclear-rebirth-...) [2](https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/05/09/georgia-nuclear-plants-c...) [3](https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/georgias-big-ne...).
- Nuclear (Vogtle): The total projected costs for the Vogtle expansion are nearing $35 billion for two reactors, providing a combined capacity of 2.2 GW. This translates to approximately $15.9 billion per GW.
- Solar + Megapack: the capital cost for solar power is around $1 billion per GW. Adding battery storage to match the continuous output capability of nuclear plants significantly affects the total cost. Tesla Megapack costs vary, but an estimate of around $200 million for 1 GWh of storage was given. The exact cost for solar plus Megapack to achieve comparable 24/7 output capacity as nuclear would depend on the required storage duration to offset the variability of solar generation.
The Vogtle project's cost overruns and delays highlight the financial risks associated with large-scale nuclear projects. The actual cost of Vogtle significantly exceeds initial projections, emphasizing the challenge of managing complex nuclear construction projects within budget and timeline expectations. In contrast, solar and battery storage projects, such as those utilizing Tesla's Megapack, offer faster deployment times and have seen decreasing costs over time. However, to achieve a continuous power supply similar to a 1 GW nuclear plant, substantial investment in storage would be necessary, potentially narrowing the cost difference.
The construction of new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia provides a real-world example to re-evaluate the costs associated with building nuclear power versus a combination of solar power and battery storage.
The Plant Vogtle expansion involved the construction of two new reactors, Units 3 and 4, which faced significant delays and cost overruns. Initially estimated to cost around $14 billion with an expected operational start in 2016, the project's expenses ballooned to over $30 billion, more than double the original estimate. This increase does not include an additional $3.68 billion paid by the original contractor, Westinghouse, to the owners after going bankrupt, which brings the total spending to more than $34 billion. The construction started in 2009, with Unit 3 reaching "initial criticality" in 2023, marking the beginning of a self-sustaining nuclear fission reaction. Unit 3 is expected to come into service in mid-2023, with Unit 4 following in late 2023 or early 2024 [1](https://www.gpb.org/news/2023/05/25/georgia-nuclear-rebirth-...) [2](https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/05/09/georgia-nuclear-plants-c...) [3](https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/georgias-big-ne...).
- Nuclear (Vogtle): The total projected costs for the Vogtle expansion are nearing $35 billion for two reactors, providing a combined capacity of 2.2 GW. This translates to approximately $15.9 billion per GW.
- Solar + Megapack: the capital cost for solar power is around $1 billion per GW. Adding battery storage to match the continuous output capability of nuclear plants significantly affects the total cost. Tesla Megapack costs vary, but an estimate of around $200 million for 1 GWh of storage was given. The exact cost for solar plus Megapack to achieve comparable 24/7 output capacity as nuclear would depend on the required storage duration to offset the variability of solar generation.
The Vogtle project's cost overruns and delays highlight the financial risks associated with large-scale nuclear projects. The actual cost of Vogtle significantly exceeds initial projections, emphasizing the challenge of managing complex nuclear construction projects within budget and timeline expectations. In contrast, solar and battery storage projects, such as those utilizing Tesla's Megapack, offer faster deployment times and have seen decreasing costs over time. However, to achieve a continuous power supply similar to a 1 GW nuclear plant, substantial investment in storage would be necessary, potentially narrowing the cost difference.
It's not fair to compare 1 GW of solar to 1 GW of nuclear power.
A solar plant will produce at full capacity an equivalent of ~5 hours a day.
Nuclear will produce at full capacity for 24/7/365.
A solar plant will produce at full capacity an equivalent of ~5 hours a day.
Nuclear will produce at full capacity for 24/7/365.
Feel free to calculate how many GW of solar you can build for the price of 1GW of nuclear
did you want explanations for the nuclear fixation or just want to argue? it's a way cooler technology, even if the real world intrudes upon its implementation.
it's not the cost of solar you've got to look at, but the cost of solar + batteries to cover the problem with solar: it doesn't work when the sun isn't shining. Now, that's less of a problem for most of California (it's an issue in snowy Tahoe), and grid-sized energy storage can cover the shortfall, but nuclear fission simply doesn't have that problem. It has other problems instead, which make solar the better choice for California, imo, but not everywhere is LA.
it's not the cost of solar you've got to look at, but the cost of solar + batteries to cover the problem with solar: it doesn't work when the sun isn't shining. Now, that's less of a problem for most of California (it's an issue in snowy Tahoe), and grid-sized energy storage can cover the shortfall, but nuclear fission simply doesn't have that problem. It has other problems instead, which make solar the better choice for California, imo, but not everywhere is LA.
Nuclear would increase costs, due to it being the most expensive form of new generation we have.
Surely if the government wanted to go down this route, it would be a lot fairer and simpler to manage with the government sending a low-income rebate/refund check to low-income households when they do their taxes?
They could then collect the costs off the energy companies.
The proposed solution seems like a corporation's wet-dream - Being able to charge consumers exactly the maximum amount of what they are able to pay for a product.
They could then collect the costs off the energy companies.
The proposed solution seems like a corporation's wet-dream - Being able to charge consumers exactly the maximum amount of what they are able to pay for a product.
Beyond cost, what is stopping somebody from going off grid, and relying entirely on their own solar + battery system? Is there some law that makes this illegal? If not, it seems like this would cause a lot of upper income folks to just disconnect from the grid.
I've never had such unreliable power as I had when I lived in Mountain View (and I've lived in Buffalo, NY and in the hurricane alley in North Carolina). PG&E is a disaster.
I've never had such unreliable power as I had when I lived in Mountain View (and I've lived in Buffalo, NY and in the hurricane alley in North Carolina). PG&E is a disaster.
> PG&E is a disaster.
It's fascinating to me how santa clara and palo alto are within a few miles and both have reasonable electric utilities with acceptable rates.
It's fascinating to me how santa clara and palo alto are within a few miles and both have reasonable electric utilities with acceptable rates.
Palo Alto and Santa Clara both have "city owned utilities". Those utilities don't produce power, they don't bring power into the cities, they may not even distribute power within the cities.
What they do do is buy power and sell it to the residents.
Thanks to 1930s laws, they get first claim on the least expensive power sources in California.
Both Santa Clara and Palo Alto "power companies" have also managed to minimize the "hey, there's a large pile of money and if we only raise rates just a bit, think of all the good that we could do."
I mention that because San Jose has started a local "utility" that doesn't have appreciably lower rates than PG&E.
What they do do is buy power and sell it to the residents.
Thanks to 1930s laws, they get first claim on the least expensive power sources in California.
Both Santa Clara and Palo Alto "power companies" have also managed to minimize the "hey, there's a large pile of money and if we only raise rates just a bit, think of all the good that we could do."
I mention that because San Jose has started a local "utility" that doesn't have appreciably lower rates than PG&E.
> Thanks to 1930s laws, they get first claim on the least expensive power sources in California.
How much does this matter? wholesale power is available to PG&E at 2-4c/kwh.
How much does this matter? wholesale power is available to PG&E at 2-4c/kwh.
The problem in my neighborhood (literally right across the 101 from the Google MTV campus) was that PG&E never bothered to bury the lines, and the overhead lines were poorly maintained and overgrown by trees. So whenever there was wind, branches would drop, and take out the power. We'd have an outtage quite regularly.
Contrast to my neighborhoods in other states where the power wires were buried, and the only times we were without power was when the transmission lines to the entire neighborhood were taken out by weather far more severe than I ever saw in CA.
Contrast to my neighborhoods in other states where the power wires were buried, and the only times we were without power was when the transmission lines to the entire neighborhood were taken out by weather far more severe than I ever saw in CA.
To be fair, I live in rural Quebec, and none of rhe power lines are buried. Yet these power lines travel through woods, forests, and?
The vegetation is kept pruned.
Meanwhile, even with Hydro Quebec performing normal maintenance (unlike PG&E), we have the lowest power rates in Canada nad the US. And that's with a far more rural population, compared to SV, which means a lot more pruning per customer served.
The problem is PG&E, not that the lines aren't buried.
The vegetation is kept pruned.
Meanwhile, even with Hydro Quebec performing normal maintenance (unlike PG&E), we have the lowest power rates in Canada nad the US. And that's with a far more rural population, compared to SV, which means a lot more pruning per customer served.
The problem is PG&E, not that the lines aren't buried.
Density. PG&E needs to cover a lot of more rural land including many fire prone areas which the more local municipal services do not
No. You're apeing their propaganda.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39814204
Quebec is far far far more rural than any part of California, it just performs maintenance and pruning. And yet?
Lowest rates in Canada/US.
It's all PG&E not performing required, easily done pruning.
Quebec is far far far more rural than any part of California, it just performs maintenance and pruning. And yet?
Lowest rates in Canada/US.
It's all PG&E not performing required, easily done pruning.
Split pge up then, let the rural areas pay what they cost
It is illegal in some locations. Usually by: cannot have a dwelling without power. Cannot legally have power without a grid connection. Ergo if people are living there you have to have a grid connection.
But if you’re rich enough, you could work around it.
But if you’re rich enough, you could work around it.
Article is from 2023. The backlash if these are implemented will be huge, so some legislators are proposing a flat connection fee and reduced rates across the board.
Keep in mind the rider that brought this into AB205 was slipped in at the last minute and not examined in any detail. It seems pretty obvious it would not have passed if it had been debated. I'd love to know more about how this happened and who was involved.
Keep in mind the rider that brought this into AB205 was slipped in at the last minute and not examined in any detail. It seems pretty obvious it would not have passed if it had been debated. I'd love to know more about how this happened and who was involved.
Can we escape this by using solar + a battery and disconnecting from the grid?
No. Nuclear is the way to go.
Nah.
The construction of new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia provides a real-world example to re-evaluate the costs associated with building nuclear power versus a combination of solar power and battery storage.
The Plant Vogtle expansion involved the construction of two new reactors, Units 3 and 4, which faced significant delays and cost overruns. Initially estimated to cost around $14 billion with an expected operational start in 2016, the project's expenses ballooned to over $30 billion, more than double the original estimate. This increase does not include an additional $3.68 billion paid by the original contractor, Westinghouse, to the owners after going bankrupt, which brings the total spending to more than $34 billion. The construction started in 2009, with Unit 3 reaching "initial criticality" in 2023, marking the beginning of a self-sustaining nuclear fission reaction. Unit 3 is expected to come into service in mid-2023, with Unit 4 following in late 2023 or early 2024 [1](https://www.gpb.org/news/2023/05/25/georgia-nuclear-rebirth-...) [2](https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/05/09/georgia-nuclear-plants-c...) [3](https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/georgias-big-ne...).
- Nuclear (Vogtle): The total projected costs for the Vogtle expansion are nearing $35 billion for two reactors, providing a combined capacity of 2.2 GW. This translates to approximately $15.9 billion per GW.
- Solar + Megapack: As previously estimated, the capital cost for solar power is around $1 billion per GW. Adding battery storage to match the continuous output capability of nuclear plants significantly affects the total cost. Tesla Megapack costs vary, but an estimate of around $200 million for 1 GWh of storage was given. The exact cost for solar plus Megapack to achieve comparable 24/7 output capacity as nuclear would depend on the required storage duration to offset the variability of solar generation.
The Vogtle project's cost overruns and delays highlight the financial risks associated with large-scale nuclear projects. The actual cost of Vogtle significantly exceeds initial projections, emphasizing the challenge of managing complex nuclear construction projects within budget and timeline expectations. In contrast, solar and battery storage projects, such as those utilizing Tesla's Megapack, offer faster deployment times and have seen decreasing costs over time. However, to achieve a continuous power supply similar to a 1 GW nuclear plant, substantial investment in storage would be necessary, potentially narrowing the cost difference.
These insights from the Vogtle project's experience underline the importance of considering not only the upfront capital costs but also the risk of cost overruns and delays in large-scale energy projects. While nuclear power offers the advantage of continuous, low-carbon electricity generation, the financial and logistical challenges evident in the Vogtle expansion may prompt utilities and policymakers to favor the more predictable costs and scalability of renewable energy and storage solutions.
For future energy projects, this comparison underscores the necessity of rigorous project management, realistic budgeting, and the consideration of evolving energy technologies and market conditions.
The construction of new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia provides a real-world example to re-evaluate the costs associated with building nuclear power versus a combination of solar power and battery storage.
The Plant Vogtle expansion involved the construction of two new reactors, Units 3 and 4, which faced significant delays and cost overruns. Initially estimated to cost around $14 billion with an expected operational start in 2016, the project's expenses ballooned to over $30 billion, more than double the original estimate. This increase does not include an additional $3.68 billion paid by the original contractor, Westinghouse, to the owners after going bankrupt, which brings the total spending to more than $34 billion. The construction started in 2009, with Unit 3 reaching "initial criticality" in 2023, marking the beginning of a self-sustaining nuclear fission reaction. Unit 3 is expected to come into service in mid-2023, with Unit 4 following in late 2023 or early 2024 [1](https://www.gpb.org/news/2023/05/25/georgia-nuclear-rebirth-...) [2](https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/05/09/georgia-nuclear-plants-c...) [3](https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/georgias-big-ne...).
- Nuclear (Vogtle): The total projected costs for the Vogtle expansion are nearing $35 billion for two reactors, providing a combined capacity of 2.2 GW. This translates to approximately $15.9 billion per GW.
- Solar + Megapack: As previously estimated, the capital cost for solar power is around $1 billion per GW. Adding battery storage to match the continuous output capability of nuclear plants significantly affects the total cost. Tesla Megapack costs vary, but an estimate of around $200 million for 1 GWh of storage was given. The exact cost for solar plus Megapack to achieve comparable 24/7 output capacity as nuclear would depend on the required storage duration to offset the variability of solar generation.
The Vogtle project's cost overruns and delays highlight the financial risks associated with large-scale nuclear projects. The actual cost of Vogtle significantly exceeds initial projections, emphasizing the challenge of managing complex nuclear construction projects within budget and timeline expectations. In contrast, solar and battery storage projects, such as those utilizing Tesla's Megapack, offer faster deployment times and have seen decreasing costs over time. However, to achieve a continuous power supply similar to a 1 GW nuclear plant, substantial investment in storage would be necessary, potentially narrowing the cost difference.
These insights from the Vogtle project's experience underline the importance of considering not only the upfront capital costs but also the risk of cost overruns and delays in large-scale energy projects. While nuclear power offers the advantage of continuous, low-carbon electricity generation, the financial and logistical challenges evident in the Vogtle expansion may prompt utilities and policymakers to favor the more predictable costs and scalability of renewable energy and storage solutions.
For future energy projects, this comparison underscores the necessity of rigorous project management, realistic budgeting, and the consideration of evolving energy technologies and market conditions.
The best example for Nuclear is Barakah [0]. I just so happened to do the napkin math for it compared to solar + batteries yesterday.
TL;DR Barakah is 4 reactors with total of 5,6GWe and came $5B under budget at $24.4B to about $4.4B/GW which is 4x the solar case. At about $1B/GW the solar capacity factor would even out in a very sunny and cloudless location.
Build time for each reactor (smartly staggered) was 8 to 7 years.
You would not get batteries in the same budget at all.
That said I think solar can be built much cheaper. $0.5B/GW BoS should be easily achievable with module prices alone being in the $0.15B/GW range at the moment.
Jenny Chase in her book Solar Power Finance Without the Jargon [1] comes to the conclusion that both nuclear and solar+batteries end up at about $100/MWh energy price.
With the energy price being equal there are really only two questions left over:
1. How fast can you build out capacity? Here the win is hands down solar. Everything is super modularized, systems/costs/buildout scale in a very linear fashion and can be stupidly parallelized. A GW of Solar PV can be physically built in months. For nuclear this is at best 7 years but more realistically 10y+.
2. What about places in higher latitudes where seasonal variation of insolation varies drastically? Nuclear would obviously be ideal as it does not care about seasons, smart people could also make use of waste heat. That said, would it still be faster to build out HV links to carry power from further away than to wait for nuclear to happen? Don't know.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Solar-Finance-Without-Jargon-second/d...
TL;DR Barakah is 4 reactors with total of 5,6GWe and came $5B under budget at $24.4B to about $4.4B/GW which is 4x the solar case. At about $1B/GW the solar capacity factor would even out in a very sunny and cloudless location.
Build time for each reactor (smartly staggered) was 8 to 7 years.
You would not get batteries in the same budget at all.
That said I think solar can be built much cheaper. $0.5B/GW BoS should be easily achievable with module prices alone being in the $0.15B/GW range at the moment.
Jenny Chase in her book Solar Power Finance Without the Jargon [1] comes to the conclusion that both nuclear and solar+batteries end up at about $100/MWh energy price.
With the energy price being equal there are really only two questions left over:
1. How fast can you build out capacity? Here the win is hands down solar. Everything is super modularized, systems/costs/buildout scale in a very linear fashion and can be stupidly parallelized. A GW of Solar PV can be physically built in months. For nuclear this is at best 7 years but more realistically 10y+.
2. What about places in higher latitudes where seasonal variation of insolation varies drastically? Nuclear would obviously be ideal as it does not care about seasons, smart people could also make use of waste heat. That said, would it still be faster to build out HV links to carry power from further away than to wait for nuclear to happen? Don't know.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Solar-Finance-Without-Jargon-second/d...
On an individual basis, I would think so. I don't know of any requirement to be hooked up to the grid.
Could maybe even stretch it to condo buildings if everyone is on the same wavelength. Whole neighborhoods is probably too much of a push, though.
Could maybe even stretch it to condo buildings if everyone is on the same wavelength. Whole neighborhoods is probably too much of a push, though.
It would take a large outlay to get the solar and battery to completely disconnect. Way more than it would to simply pay the utilities what they rightfully lobbied into law. They know this.
And what do apartment renters or condo owners do? Landlord/HOA isn't gonna care.
And what do apartment renters or condo owners do? Landlord/HOA isn't gonna care.
We're okay with people being charged different for same hotel room! Well, Welcome to Hotel Californiahh !!
The usual way to this would be to have the power company charge what they need to, then provide a subsidy to low income consumers to help offset the cost.
It is super weird to make the power company responsible for administering social policy.
It is super weird to make the power company responsible for administering social policy.
The only proper way to do this is to appropriate the grid and socialize it.
There are zero acceptable excuses for privatizing an energy grid. The only reason it's done is to create another permanent monopoly to exploit the public for unaccountable profits.
There are zero acceptable excuses for privatizing an energy grid. The only reason it's done is to create another permanent monopoly to exploit the public for unaccountable profits.
One of the biggest reasons monopolists are a problem is that they can exploitatively price and charge as much as possible from each customer, minimizing the consumer surplus.
Kind of like the state of California is trying to do here.
Kind of like the state of California is trying to do here.
Why would the politicians allow this, surely this backfires hard on them
There aren't enough people in the top 10% (by income) to repeal this.
Believe it or not, but a whole lot of people don't like price discrimination and aren't in the top 10%.
I believe it, but there are also a lot of people in that top 10% who will like this price discrimination.
My 10% cut-off is probably wrong. It's unlikely to have a noticeable effect on the top 5%. (Zuckerberg wouldn't notice if his home electric bill went up by 200-500x.) The interesting effects will be at a lower premium over median income.
TIL that the Robertson-Patman price discrimination ban (15 USC 13) doesn't work the way that I thought that it did.
My 10% cut-off is probably wrong. It's unlikely to have a noticeable effect on the top 5%. (Zuckerberg wouldn't notice if his home electric bill went up by 200-500x.) The interesting effects will be at a lower premium over median income.
TIL that the Robertson-Patman price discrimination ban (15 USC 13) doesn't work the way that I thought that it did.
What is the value of a shared currency if it's purchased power differs person to person? When you earn higher income, in addition to tax the value goes down?
It’s already basically that without anything additional.
$10k is nothing to Musk or Buffett or Gates. It’s definitely noticeable to me. And to someone in Africa, it could be literally life changing.
$10k is nothing to Musk or Buffett or Gates. It’s definitely noticeable to me. And to someone in Africa, it could be literally life changing.
> But amid the debate over rate design, we’ve lost sight of the much bigger challenge of how to bring down utility costs overall
You increase supply!! Build more nuclear!! Then it will be cheap for everyone. But nooo, somehow the cost of nuclear is more than the cost of climate change.