I already have something like that. The utility pays me for allowing them to reduce power to my home when they are under load. It usually comes in the form of cutting power to my water heater. It’s seldom an issue, and I don’t pay any attention to it.
Interesting. Although don’t we already sort of get paid by lower bills? Although if they give even more for less usage then average in the neighborhood, that would be pretty cool. Of course some in my neighborhood have solar panels on their roofs so I may be screwed regardless. I am not getting solar until they are way way less then then cost now.
As usual, the 10th Amendment, (state’s rights) no longer apply in America anymore.
We have had this program in California for decades, and some rectums got the PUC to cancel it this coming March.
If we used electricity during high demand time from noon to 6 pm we paid more per KWH. We paid less/KWH if we don’t use it during the high demand time.
The only extra cost was a meter with a clock, which we paid for the installation and cost.
We did not have to set up an expensive solar system using a deduction paid by other users.
We just planned our heavy electricity use during the lower rate time.
It worked when our children were in elementary, middle school and high school and with an empty nest.
Now the only way to save will be an expensive and not reliable solar system. Those are really fake savings as other electricity users have to fund the solar scam.
”The issue before the court was whether FERC could compel regional power markets in the U.S. to pay consumers who reduce their electricity usage at critical periods.”
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponents Argument
While it is good that the Supreme Courts decision favors the consumer, please note that the following. Regardless what FDRs state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congresss Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate INTRAstate commerce.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So if I understand the Courts decision correctly, for those utility customers who are domiciled in the same state as their utility companies, post-FDR era, state sovereignty-ignoring justices may have wrongly interfered with intrastate commerce, wrongly unconstitutionally expanding the federal governments powers with their decision.
Corrections, insights welcome.
As much as I agree this is an overreach of a government agency, I expect the generation companies have already found find a way to adapt. In the arena of ideas, private enterprises will run rings around bureaucrats.
Me. I get my electricity for free. Ask me how.
www.b2k.myambit.com
Widening of the Commerce Clause ... don’t you just love it?
The insidious part of this is that electric consumption habits could make production more efficient ...
‘... to pay consumers who reduce their electricity usage at critical periods ...’
When tyranny makes the trains run on time, it’s worse in the long run than when it fails.
... That could be a problem with Trump as well.