It’s surprising there isn’t some insurance product to defend against the surprise bills.
Technically this company was trying to fulfill the market need driven by the deregulation, and trying to provide lower cost solutions to the consumer, but they needed to build something to help with these spikes. They could have eventually I think, but just a tough business frankly!
You mean, like, they could charge a slightly higher price most of the time, so they can shelter their customers from rare wild price fluctuations?
No one wanted to take the other side of a tail risk trade?
I wonder if they could have made tail risk bets that prices could spike during seasonal occurrences that had small fixed upfront costs, but high enough payout to absorb losses while still keeping prices lower than competitors. If they could have, none of us would be talking about this now (except maybe "How one energy company won big betting that energy prices would eventually spike").
I guess that sounds sarcastic, because probably for most people it's not worth it, but there's probably a point where the added overhead of the third party is worth the savings. Maybe then the third party insurer would be motivated to build active cost monitoring device that will cut the power to your house when the price gets too high. Do you trust your power provider to build un-backdooered logic, that they won't use for other purposes, for such a thing?
It being a third party also affords other opportunities, like, not buying the insurance and building your own power/price monitoring kit/algorithm. Suppose you are willing to pay a high premium to keep your freezer running but not the wall warts on all of your voltage-transformed devices?