John b
03-13-2011, 08:35 PM
A long time ago, because of gates, dogs, long driveways,and livestock that would interfere with meter-readers, PG&E made available a device for the customers to display their meter readings at the roadway. The little dial-hands on a cardboard back could be adjusted to match the dials on the meters. Then it could be put at a mailbox, fence post, or other handy spot for the meter reader. This made the collection of usage information much easier for their accounting folks.
Even though we were not being paid for our work in their accounting, it seemed to make sense. We could opt-out too and accounting would need to deal with the problem. With abundant energy flowing from cheap sources, abundant labor at good rates, and a focused, lean structure, there was enough money to pay for a fully functioning distribution and administration of our power system. and to reward the investors for the use of their capital. Some people may have paid more for their share of the costs than others, but it all came out in the wash of huge economies of scale.
The ratepayers were customers. Industry provided a service. Regulators were mediators.
Today, things have changed. Even the term "ratepayer" is the defective progeny of generations of "inbreeding" by the incestuous relationships between utilities, investors, special interests, regulators, politicians, funds, and more. Today, what dominates the public energy discussions are elements of intense rationing and pricing schemes. De-regulation never happened. What did happen was re-regulation with a much greater number of players and far more opportunities to bleed the over-all energy enterprise.
Even with a virtual "deregulation" there is still a monopoly at the meter. To think there was actually a utility de-regulation is as crazy as thinking that a railroad monopoly was broken by expansion of the markets to serve We have some "communization" of areas with utility districts but the ownership of the infrastructure, rightly so, is mostly unchanged and unchallenged by any competitive enterprise. The only real competition is distributed power generation.
Now that the regulators have been in bed with the industry for 50 years, they now serve the industry by wringing every cent from the "ratepayer" and serving as apologists for whatever comes down the pike. Even the most customer oriented individual is overwhelmed by a tsunami of coordinated forces.
There are good solutions that REAL regulators of a the very REAL public power monopolies could demand from the system. Maybe like "no CO2". Fortunately, there is movement in that direction and regulators are not all evil minions of robber barons. Unfortunately, they are relatively weak, naive, and frequently, greedy for an easy job. The people who have an educated interest in these issues must begin, aggressively. to supervise the decision-makers and organize their friends to do the same. The smart meter discussion should illustrate how desperate we are.
The discussion should address how we have come to be compelled to install some device. The discussion should explore the real problem, not a discussion of peoples preferences. Imagine that Burger King is the only source of food. We no longer debate what's on the menu. Now we must eat it...and the discussion is about those who won't?
What's wrong with this picture?
John b
Even though we were not being paid for our work in their accounting, it seemed to make sense. We could opt-out too and accounting would need to deal with the problem. With abundant energy flowing from cheap sources, abundant labor at good rates, and a focused, lean structure, there was enough money to pay for a fully functioning distribution and administration of our power system. and to reward the investors for the use of their capital. Some people may have paid more for their share of the costs than others, but it all came out in the wash of huge economies of scale.
The ratepayers were customers. Industry provided a service. Regulators were mediators.
Today, things have changed. Even the term "ratepayer" is the defective progeny of generations of "inbreeding" by the incestuous relationships between utilities, investors, special interests, regulators, politicians, funds, and more. Today, what dominates the public energy discussions are elements of intense rationing and pricing schemes. De-regulation never happened. What did happen was re-regulation with a much greater number of players and far more opportunities to bleed the over-all energy enterprise.
Even with a virtual "deregulation" there is still a monopoly at the meter. To think there was actually a utility de-regulation is as crazy as thinking that a railroad monopoly was broken by expansion of the markets to serve We have some "communization" of areas with utility districts but the ownership of the infrastructure, rightly so, is mostly unchanged and unchallenged by any competitive enterprise. The only real competition is distributed power generation.
Now that the regulators have been in bed with the industry for 50 years, they now serve the industry by wringing every cent from the "ratepayer" and serving as apologists for whatever comes down the pike. Even the most customer oriented individual is overwhelmed by a tsunami of coordinated forces.
There are good solutions that REAL regulators of a the very REAL public power monopolies could demand from the system. Maybe like "no CO2". Fortunately, there is movement in that direction and regulators are not all evil minions of robber barons. Unfortunately, they are relatively weak, naive, and frequently, greedy for an easy job. The people who have an educated interest in these issues must begin, aggressively. to supervise the decision-makers and organize their friends to do the same. The smart meter discussion should illustrate how desperate we are.
The discussion should address how we have come to be compelled to install some device. The discussion should explore the real problem, not a discussion of peoples preferences. Imagine that Burger King is the only source of food. We no longer debate what's on the menu. Now we must eat it...and the discussion is about those who won't?
What's wrong with this picture?
John b