On Apr 16, 6:20*pm, Home Guy wrote:
Duesenberg wrote:
Do you beleive that consumers for the last 30 or 40 years have been
paying a fair price for energy costs?

The issue is the manner in which they're measuring and billing you, and
whether that method is needed and is cost effective (and for whom is it
needed and cost-effective).

Look.

If you had a choice between 2 credit cards:

Card A costs you $25 a year, and it has a conventional magnetic strip.

Card B costs you $200 a year, and it has a strip and chip. *The chip
allows for new and different ways to carry out transactions that card A
doesn't. *It costs more for Card B because of the additional cost of the
chip, upgrades to the data network and new readers at point-of-sale FOR
WHICH OWNERS OF CARD B AND ONLY THEY WILL END UP PAYING FOR.

Now, in this case individuals can decide which card they want to own.
The free market at work. *I'm betting that many people would balk at
Card B and it's economics.

But in the case of TOU electricity measurement and billing, there is no
choice. *Option B is being forced down our throats with no regard to the
economics.

Again, I state that there was nothing wrong with the "old" way of paying
for electricity - which is that the residential customer base pays, in
aggregate, for all the electricity they use that the utility must buy
and distribute for them.

And further, that a 2 (or more) tier rate structure can be imposed based
on the quantity of KWH that an individual customer uses per month -
without the utility needing to know the TOU of that electricity.

That is just a form of short termism. That's what got the banks in
the ****.