Louisiana’s major electric utilities are still pushing state regulators to allow them to charge customers for the costs of a new statewide energy efficiency program and for the electricity customers will no longer need because of that program.
While the idea might seem like a straightforward solution to cut back on waste, utility company executives aren’t very happy with it. In general, utility companies earn more profit when homes and businesses waste electricity. Less waste leads to lower electric bills, which could mean lower profits for the utilities.
Entergy Louisiana and Cleco vehemently opposed the idea and successfully delayed its adoption for years. A consultant the commission hired to write the basic guidelines for the program spent 13 years and over a half-million dollars trying to appease utility companies with agreeable rules.
Fed up with the delays, Commissioner Craig Greene, R-Baton Rouge, ended the stalemate in January and joined with the two Democrats on the commission in adopting what they say is a more consumer-friendly program than the one the utilities wanted.
That's not how any of this works.
Fuck them and fuck anyone who thinks this makes sense. Paying for energy you don't use because 'boo-hoo company profits' is probably the most blatant late stage capitalism bullshit I've seen all month, and probably up there with a handful for the year.
In nearly every single example I can think of i fully agree.
The only way I could see this being possibly justified is transmission costs - repairs and maintenance regardless of actual power use, especially if they are selling power back using the grid. I would say its a pricing change rather that suing someone... but again, only possibly I can think of.
i think a good analog for what youre thinking is the '911 tax'. it used to be that landlines had a line tax to pay for emergency services, but when everyone dumped their land lines the 911 tax bottomed out and small communities could no longer cover their emergency services costs.
its since been supplanted with other tax streams, but having to pay for the infrastructure makes sense.
but this shit? profits? sit and spin on a cactus you fucking fucks.
Again, only way I could think of. If you (company) are paying for infrastructure and that comes from your profits then it makes sense.
I'd say scrap the % for infrastructure, fixed costs to be connected to grid (for household or companies in a set area) then pay for use only.
You're spot on with the comparison.
courts that make decisions like this should have all their decisions and laws made a deliberate mockery of. this shit needs to get much broader hate.