Maybe where you are, but not every utility operates that way. Where I am, there are fees for being grid connected and other stuff, they are flat fees regardless of how much electricity we use. Meaning even though I live a couple miles from the substation in a relatively densely populated area (for the region), I pay the same flat fee as someone who lives right next to it and someone who live 20 miles away from it. That’s a fee for having access to the grid. Usage comes on top of that. And in this case, percentage of usage does not at all relate to cost to maintain the grid to deliver that power, given how many more miles of lines might be needed for a few homes.
It’s not fair, but are you saying if 10 families live out on a rural road, they should be solely responsible for paying for the upkeep of that road, since no one else really needs it? If so, that’s an interesting conversation, and one worth having, but it is an aside from the use-based model as is being put forth here.
Some of us are saying, basic infrastructure should be like the “flat fees” but taken from a fair tax system, and then usage fees could be on top of that.
Tl;dr version- it seems like what you’re talking about is essentially a toll-based model. But what would be the impetus to spend money from the community chest on less traveled roads? Or would they just be left to crumble?
For example I’d wager that few folks on this thread would be in favor of the subsidies that Venezuela provides for gasoline there. Their citizens currently pay about $0.08 per gallon, which creates some bad incentives.
Oh no it isn’t. Been to California lately? Electric cars won. They are here, you can buy them, they work great, and they are exploding in popularity. That ship has sailed.
They were the only practical option anyway. Biofuels consume way too much land. We are currently using all arable land on the planet for feeding people, so large scale switching to biofuels is tantamount to genocide. Other chemicals such as ammonia and hydrogen are way too inefficient to produce at scale. We struggle to produce enough ammonia for fertilizer as it is.
It’s a lot easier to get the grid ready for electric than to solve those other problems right now. And we need to solve these problems right now. Perfect is the enemy of done, and every delay will kill millions of people a hundred years from now because climate change is 1°C worse than it needed to be if we had acted quicker.
Exactly. And that makes sense. The two households at either extreme of the electricity consumption spectrum both need electricity as much. It’s just that one consumes more and pays more as a result. But both should contribute equally to the infrastructure that supplies it.
So everyone should pay equally for the infrastructure upgrade even though the need for the upgrade is being driven by the heavy energy users? We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
I disagree slightly on this, but for me it’s a policy thought exercise. I do think we all deserve good infrastructure.
Where I disagree is that, as a totally biased example, rich assholes who opt to live in a place that requires an extra 50 miles of power lines and associated maintenance costs should pay the same flat fee for grid upkeep as the poorer folks who have to live right by the power stations.
The closer in people aren’t costing the same amount to the power company. There are way less miles of lines to maintain.
It’s a tricky topic. And I’m not explaining my position very clearly, but it’s inequitable given the models I’ve seen proposed here. It’s inequitable in our current system, period.
I think we can do better, but I think anyone who thinks there’s a simple answer are kidding themselves. (Not saying you think that, tbc.)
Also, this is all in the context of the road use fees others have brought up on this thread.
Everyone needs a functioning grid. And just like most common goods, if they’re worth doing, they’re worth funding from the common source, rather than cobbling it together from dubious and inconsistent sources. That’s how we got where we are now.
And you want to talk about perverse incentives? What you’re describing is disincentivizing people from shifting to electric vehicles. That seems pretty important for, ya know, keeping the planet habitable for a little while longer.
That’s a tough one. Because that example could go either way. The rich asshole could be near the power station and the people living out in the boonies might live there because they’ve been priced out of coastal urban centers where the jobs are. So let’s split the difference and fund infrastructure not from flat fees but from a progressive tax like income tax.
When I was little we lived on a mile long dirt road (we were not rich but the opposite) in the country on which there were 6 houses. I didn’t know this at the time of course since I was 7, but my understanding is we paid for utilities to be run down the road, split 6 ways. Then, upkeep was part of our bill.
Not saying that is the right approach necessarily, but if you individualize maintenance you will likely hurt rural poorer people worse than richer people.
This is also why the idea of a road use fee rankles me. It sounds nice in abstract terms, but it is hard to make work in a practical sense without harming small farmers and others that rely on more rural routes.
Yes, and the grid we have is functioning for the current demand. All users should and do pay a share towards the grid maintenance. Where you and disagree is on the idea that if the entire grid needs a major upgrade specifically to meet the increased demands of people with eletric cars, that the apartment-dwelling bus rider should pay the same fee for that upgrade as the heavy energy user whose new demands are driving the need for the upgrade.
QFT. Part of the current situation where we see potential food shortages can be accounted for the fact that 40% of all the corn grown in America is used for biodiesel. If the corn was used to feed people, then the potential for a looming food shortage due to the war in Ukraine would be greatly ameliorated (although a lot of people will have to make do with corn products instead of wheat or sunflower oil).
Not in California and not in Texas, though for different reasons. In California, the grid can’t handle the demand without starting wildfires and in Texas, well, it just can’t handle it. And demand keeps increasing with or without EVs; it’s just increasing much faster because of them.
I don’t think they should pay the same. I think that upgrade should be paid for with progressive income taxes, such that the people who gain the most from infrastructure (the wealthy) pay the most for its development.
And ultimately, we do all benefit. Your apartment-dwelling bus rider benefits from the upgrade in that they will be able to live somewhere that isn’t on fire.
fair enough. i was using the guideline for how “but” or “however” is used in casual speech: negate the first part of the sentence and ignore the rest.
which would indicate to me you meant lots of things shouldn’t be subsided; mostly subsidies are bad. so quoting just your primary point seemed reasonable. it usually is correct, sorry that it squished the nuance
for my part, i don’t think that charging by the mile ( or not ) is really truly a subsidy. the existence of the road is the subsidy and it’s mere existence is the misdirected incentive
if we wanted to disincentivize driving, we’d let the cars do whatever damage they were going to and never repair the roads again
until that grand day, i think they’re common infrastructure and should be paid for that way. we probably won’t ever see eye to eye on that
unfortunately, i think regardless of exactly how - the more expensive we make hummers, the more the bros will want them. and anyone who can afford them is hardly going to care about a license fee, a gas tax, or a mile tax. the pointlessly conspicuous consumption is the point
we’d have to legislate them or the roads out of existence. and that’s probably not happening anytime soon. encouraging and eventually mandating ev is probably the best the usa can do
My primary point was that subsidies influence behavior.
If you subsidize rail more people will take the train. If you subsidize the cost of gasoline and roads more people will drive private automobiles. If you subsidize the cost of medical care more people will be able to visit the doctor when they get sick. So it makes sense to subsidize the activities that have a net benefit for society and avoid subsidizing things that are a net detriment to society.
You assume correctly. There’s a huge push in the infrastructure bill for complete electrification. So in the residential programs that get federal funding whose focus is to make homes more energy efficient, huge pressure to swap out gas and oil HVAC for electrical, and especially heat pumps. Even if it might cost home owners more in utilities. it’s another example of pushing dealing with the climate crisis onto those who did the least to cause it and can least afford to shoulder the burden.
