moleculo
Footballguy
You know, I've been thinking about this. I agree with the concept in principle but something just doesn't sit right.MTskibum said:This event happened in 1989, 2011, and 2021, lets assume that this event will continue at the same rate as in the past, every 15 years.
The average centerpoint customer pays 1,860 per year, which is 28,000 dollars over a 15 year period.
A 5% increase in price would be 1400 dollars over that period, I think that is too much and anything more would be a non-starter. For 1400 dollars someone could buy a 7000 watt generator and mitigate the risk on their side. Plus this generator would also help with hurricane power loss, whereas insulating the gas wells and lines in the gas power plants would not help with hurricane power loss.
Spending money on a generator, solar/storage, etc would be a better use of consumer dollars because it covers a wider range of scenarios.
1. Who makes the cost/benefit decision? What gives you the right to decide it's not better for me to not have power once a decade, in the name of saving 5%? Depending on the circumstance, that once a decade time without power could be life or death. Yes, I could buy a generator but how is that supposed to work, given people move on average once every 5 years? Do generators move with the person, or stay with the house? What about people who live in an apartment? What about those who just moved and didn't know that the power was unstable?
2. Were power customers made aware that their service providers made this determination to not winterize their stations? Seems only fair that service providers should warn their customers that, in order to keep rates low, they would not guarantee service if it gets too cold. Especially given that this isn't a problem anywhere else in the country, no one would not assume this would be an issue.