If I'm paying entirely based on volume, then making my home twice as efficient makes my bill half as much. But under this new system, I wouldn't realize the same savings.
Seems like a policy set with priorities other then environmental protections.
There are definitely other non-environmental considerations at play, the largest being that the increasing number of home solar installations has reduced revenue streams for utility companies, while at the same time their costs have increased due to grid maintenance and wildfire prevention projects (and lawsuit payouts). Most houses with solar are still heavy users of the grid, yet they pay very little towards its upkeep. This pushes the costs onto people without solar, who tend to be renters or low income households.
> Energy cost has long been viewed as a means to constrain consumption. This new approach seems to undermine that approach given the reduced cost per volume.
The idea that electricity consumption must be constrained makes sense when the electricity is generated by fossil fuels -- replacing a gas furnace with an electric heat pump when the electricity is made by burning coal is not a big improvement. But we're entering a world where most of the electricity is generated by clean solar, and constraining usage doesn't reduce emissions quite as much. In this world, a heat pump powered by solar is a real improvement over a gas furnace, environmentally-speaking. But a heat pump only beats a gas furnace in terms of cost to operate if the price of electricity comes down relative to the price of gas.
From that perspective, removing constraints on electricity usage is not a bug, but a feature.