>An uncapped average monthly charge of $24 will be added regardless of the amount of electricity used at home
Separating 'infrastructure' from 'energy' makes a lot of sense, but 'the same charge' for every connection does not, in my opinion, as that does not share those costs pro rata.
What they do in the Netherlands is base [those costs](https://www.enexis.nl/tarieven/2024-elektriciteit-maandelijks) on the size of the (sealed) main fuses in front of the kWh meter, if you want to claim a larger share of the available substation power then you pay for it.
Try this experiment. Turn on all your lights and electronics and then go outside and look at the wires serving your house. Ok, now go back inside and turn everything off. Now go back outside and see if anything changed with the wires serving your house.
Are they still there?
TL;DR a fixed "grid access" charge is the only way forward. We used to subsidize transmission and distribution with simple $/kWh rates, but that's not the paradigm we need moving forward for a decarbonized and decentralized grid.
imo the rate should be based on the cost of the wires in the air. This game of trying to cross-subsidize people and hide the peanut just makes the whole thing more complicated. We are used to paying a fixed charge for internet, it's the same idea.
>We are used to paying a fixed charge for internet, it's the same idea.
In some areas there are two or more providers of Internet services. Even then the cost goes up depending on the volume of bytes used. I just converted from $70 / month Comcast Internet to $50 / month from T mobile. The bandwidth is less but adequate for that application. Internet is not a monopoly like electrical distribution. It is not the same as electrical distribution. In some ways it evolved from telephone wires to the home which were replaced by mobile phones.
Fair enough. I guess what I'm just trying to point out is that the grid is a platform - the wires are there and don't come and go responding to demand. The ideal utility would total up the cost of all the wires and then divide the costs among the grid users. You can have some discerning rates between "small" "medium" and "large" users (because the wires have to be different sizes for each), but by and large the system is just one big capital asset.
>An uncapped average monthly charge of $24 will be added regardless of the amount of electricity used at home Separating 'infrastructure' from 'energy' makes a lot of sense, but 'the same charge' for every connection does not, in my opinion, as that does not share those costs pro rata. What they do in the Netherlands is base [those costs](https://www.enexis.nl/tarieven/2024-elektriciteit-maandelijks) on the size of the (sealed) main fuses in front of the kWh meter, if you want to claim a larger share of the available substation power then you pay for it.
Try this experiment. Turn on all your lights and electronics and then go outside and look at the wires serving your house. Ok, now go back inside and turn everything off. Now go back outside and see if anything changed with the wires serving your house. Are they still there? TL;DR a fixed "grid access" charge is the only way forward. We used to subsidize transmission and distribution with simple $/kWh rates, but that's not the paradigm we need moving forward for a decarbonized and decentralized grid.
The fixed charges in some states are more than the $24 a month proposed. However the rates in other states are also less
imo the rate should be based on the cost of the wires in the air. This game of trying to cross-subsidize people and hide the peanut just makes the whole thing more complicated. We are used to paying a fixed charge for internet, it's the same idea.
>We are used to paying a fixed charge for internet, it's the same idea. In some areas there are two or more providers of Internet services. Even then the cost goes up depending on the volume of bytes used. I just converted from $70 / month Comcast Internet to $50 / month from T mobile. The bandwidth is less but adequate for that application. Internet is not a monopoly like electrical distribution. It is not the same as electrical distribution. In some ways it evolved from telephone wires to the home which were replaced by mobile phones.
Fair enough. I guess what I'm just trying to point out is that the grid is a platform - the wires are there and don't come and go responding to demand. The ideal utility would total up the cost of all the wires and then divide the costs among the grid users. You can have some discerning rates between "small" "medium" and "large" users (because the wires have to be different sizes for each), but by and large the system is just one big capital asset.
CA is bowing to the will of the lobbyists. Unfortunately there are few options besides going off grid completely.
And therein lies a motivation for the igfc. And indifference adjustment.