the8thbit
the8thbit t1_isdlu1h wrote
Reply to comment by kaminaowner2 in FREE ELECTRICITY! Credit Suisse analysis says Inflation Reduction Act will produce solar modules for two pennies a watt in Ohio, while federal tax credits will cover 50% of project costs. by manual_tranny
It's blatantly anticompetitive. If you need to charge an upkeep fee, then it should be spread across all customers. Upkeep costs the same from the company's perspective whether you generate your power largely from your own panels, or if you depend entirely on the power company. Up charging customers who decide to replace one of your services should be illegal, and in many cases, it is.
Imagine if Microsoft started charging anyone who sets their default browser to anything but Edge $5/mo for service updates. "It actually makes sense, because it costs money to develop and distribute updates!" They'd be laughed right out of court with that defense.
In most cases, what the power companies are doing is even more indefensible. They're generally regional monopolies and an some states you're required to do business with them if you want to not be homeless. At least with Windows there are alternative operating systems.
the8thbit t1_isfj7qj wrote
Reply to comment by kaminaowner2 in FREE ELECTRICITY! Credit Suisse analysis says Inflation Reduction Act will produce solar modules for two pennies a watt in Ohio, while federal tax credits will cover 50% of project costs. by manual_tranny
>The electric system has to become a subscription service, the grid can’t be replaced, and can’t be repaired for free.
Of course. So charge everyone the same subscription fee. Why should solar panel owners be forced to bear a larger portion of the cost for the same service that everyone gets?
>It’s not anti competition because you aren’t competing with the electric company, your dependent on it.
You can be both dependent on a company, and competing with them. Chrome is (mostly) dependent on an operating system ecosystem provided by Microsoft. That doesn't mean Google and Microsoft aren't competitors, and if Microsoft instituted fees for installing Chrome, that would be blatantly anticompetitive.
A home solar operator sells power to people (themselves and their other nearby people on the grid) when its more economical to get it from them than from the power company. The home solar operator gets that money, and the power company does not. If the home solar operator didn't exist, the power company would be getting that money as they wouldn't have to compete with the solar operator. Home solar installations take customers away from power companies. That's about as cut and dry competition as it gets.