- cross-posted to:
- california
- cross-posted to:
- california
Seen on reddit and other sources:
https://old.reddit.com/r/fresno/comments/1hxqlx7/the_more_i_try_to_save_energy_the_higher_the/
Its already 50c or more per kilowatt hour… https://www.pge.com/assets/pge/docs/account/rate-plans/residential-electric-rate-plan-pricing.pdf
On top of the “The Electric Home Rate Plan includes a $15-per-month Base Services Charge”… because people were starting to get 100% of their power from solar and it was “unfair”.
You would charge based on the kind of connection. A house isn’t going to draw the kind of power that a factory will, but you’re going to need the same equipment your house as you would as your neighbor’s house.
Residential crypto miners can easily draw more power than small factories. I reject the premise of your argument.
You specified energy in your example, not me. And I hinted that a hookup fee would likely be dependent on the rated power capacity of the user.
It is likely that a residential crypto miner would likely need to upgrade what they can draw from the grid.
They have 200A service, same as you. They don’t need to upgrade.
The difference is that they are using 200A 24/7/365, while you probably average less than 10A, and rarely exceed 50A.
They are literally using 20 times as much power as you, and you’re saying they should be paying the same fees as you.
One such cryptoboy per block and the total consumption in the region doubles. The infrastructure costs double. Your “flat fee” doubles, because it is divided evenly among the users, rather than assigned to the cryptoboys who created it.
And you’re saying this is a good thing?
I feel like I’ve entered the fucking twilight zone here.
No one is saying you should pay the same total bill as they do, just the same connection fee if you and crypto boy have the same hookup.
You’d pay $10 for a connection fee and $1 for power while they’d pay $10 for a connection fee and $1000 for power.