this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
173 points (98.9% liked)

Green Energy

2178 readers
12 users here now

everything about energy production

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Coskii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 110 points 2 months ago (6 children)

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.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago

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.

I agree, and considering some of the other contenders (like Musk suing an ad industry group for choosing not to buy ad space from Twitter), that's saying a lot!

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 18 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

My lamp oil business has the same problem, ever since that darn Edison came along my deserved profits have been dwindling! And my cousin has a limestone tablet store, you can't imagine what it's like!

It's what happens when you calculate with infinite growth. Eventually you'll be surprised by the fact that it isn't. The only reason why they're thinking they're OWED that money is because someone wrote down a number.

Brb, making a company, projecting 10b revenue in 2 years, complain how sales are being suppressed, maybe sue the government for one thing or another. No I don't have a product yet. That's how it works, right?

[–] sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net 2 points 2 months ago

I mean, the market is centrally planned and controlled by the state, so it isn't capitalist.

You don't need to ask the state permission to raise prices under capitalism.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'm struggling to understand why utility companies can't just put up energy prices? Why chase individual customers for this difference in power saving?

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

because nobody's going to break in and fucking kill them if they do. but they might if you don't pay. so they can.

[–] higgsboson@dubvee.org 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The rates are limited by the state...

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 3 points 2 months ago

Wow, really? Louisiana has some of the cheapest electricity in the US and the world. No wonder this problem exists when the Government forces unprofitable pricing without socialising the utility

Got a source?

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

its not how it works, but is how it's happening.

you can have courts or you can have justice. not both.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 45 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"Lower profits for the utilities" is a nonsensical phrase.

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

should be. isn't. needs fixing.

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 41 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

i'm happy to pay for some things i don't directly benefit from: public school, school meals, abortions, etc. but if someone thinks i'm going to pay for a product i never received, for no other reason than their for-profit 'line always go up' corporate bottom lines, then they can go fuck themselves

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

corporate profits should be made an example of. like, deliberately ruined whenever possible, because if this is what happens when they're up...

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago

So, if the corporation can't be profitable, it's probably time for the state to take over.

[–] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 2 months ago

Absolutely shameless.

[–] Rolive@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 2 months ago

Tell me it's an Onion article.

[–] countrypunk@slrpnk.net 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That's insane that they have so much power to begin with

[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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 what happens when one party's entire purpose in life is to just be bought and paid for. The reason they got to drag their feet for years to come up with nothing meaningful is because 3/5 members of the commission let them. I'm just glad Commissioner Greene finally came around, even if it's only because he's not running for reelection

Friendly reminder that those tiny elections down ballot are still inedibly important.

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

only ones that are.

[–] Moah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 months ago

They literally MAKE power

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

how dare you steal money from the billionaires, they are hardly making ends meet

[–] WHARRGARBL@beehaw.org 12 points 2 months ago

Power companies need the welfare now?

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 12 points 2 months ago

Capitalism is the most efficient economic system 😎👌

[–] Bongo_Stryker@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Woke liberal transgender marxists who hate America try to destroy Entergy Louisiana and put hapless shareholders into the poorhouse!

[–] countrypunk@slrpnk.net 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Won't somebody help the poor poor shareholders crying in their yachts?

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

they won't. everybody's been bought by big orphan. cowards.

[–] YourPrivatHater@ani.social 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

At that point id recommend burning down their stuff, you already pay for the damages, might as well do them.

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

really its your stuff.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

See this is where we should apply tar and feathers. If your argument literally nis that you want to earn more money, so you want to just force people to pay you, you're just a mob boss wannabe. Tar and feathers, publicly.