Simplified scenario.

• The cost for the grid provider to maintain a transformer is $1000.

• A transformer can serve 20 low-use households, or 2 high-use households.

• Both the low-use and the high-use households have the same, 200A service to their homes. Either can use up to 200A. In practice, neither actually does. The only difference between a low-use and a high-use household is in how much they actually use.

• A neighborhood has 20 low-use households (1 transformer).

• That same neighborhood as 10 high-use households (5 transformers).

• This neighborhood of 30 houses has $6000 in maintenance costs.

Here are the two options we are talking about:

1. Fixed rate. Each household in this neighborhood pays a fixed, $200 “connection fee” to cover these costs.

2. Consumption-based. Each of the 20 low-use household pays $50 ($1000 total, for the 1 transformer they share) and each high-use household pays $500 ($5000 total, for the 5 transformers they share).

With Option 1, each of the low-use households is paying 4 times the maintenance costs that they actually incur, and each heavy-use household is paying only 40% of the maintenance costs they incur.

With Option 2, both low- and high-use households pay their actual maintenance costs.

Which option makes more sense?

Fixed fees only make sense for covering administrative costs, which scale per user. Grid maintenance costs scale based (primarily) on total consumption. Fixing maintenance fees forces low-use households to subsidize high-use households.

I feel like I’m in the fucking twilight zone here. The community does not seem to comprehend what they are demanding.