Comment: If it weren't a

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Absolutely not true.Power (see in situ)

If it weren't a

If it weren't a state-sponsored monopoly, I might go to bat for them a little harder, but I maintain that this is not BS.

They're using the Gillette model where they give the handle away and make their money on blades. If they charged fees based on electricity cost plus profit and had an appropriately large base fee to cover overhead, there would be very little disincentive to using gigantic amounts of power, which would further drive up their infrastructure costs (and everybody's bill). This is the reason behind smart-meters, too, to keep a lid on their capital base.

Ultimately, these business decisions should be left up to the business, that apparently felt that near-zero usage customers weren't compatible with the existing business model.

I believe the state needs to butt out entirely, and solar "customers" that expect to be paid by the power company shouldn't be a protected species, either.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.

Also author of Stick it to the Man!