California utility to cut power to 27k customers to reduce wildfire risk
I think this presents an interesting case for permanent &quot;grid defection&quot; in rural areas.<p>The theory goes that as solar panels and battery prices drop, it will eventually make sense for homeowners to produce their own power, and &quot;defect&quot; from the electrical grid completely. Obviously this isn&#x27;t a perfect solution: for example, the homeowner is now solely responsible for fixing their own power supply issues, instead of the collective &quot;insurance&quot; the grid operator provides by fixing grid issues for customers.<p>I think that rural customers in wildfire prone areas provide one of the best use cases for grid defection. The power company can save money in two ways: by not having to maintain relatively long power lines which serve few customers and by reducing their exposure to liability for wildfire damages. It might even be in the utilities interest to subsidize rural customers defection, to focus on more urban customers. Grid defection relies on low-cost solar and batter technology, and I think we will have both in the next decade. This is something that was not even possible in years past: extending the grid to rural areas was a great example of government sponsored economic equity that market forces alone may not have provided.<p>Two things that would help aid the transition: (1) Holding grid operators liable for wildfire risk (or at least part of it) and (2) forcing rural customers to pay a greater price for their power, reflective of the greater cost to provide it. I know (2) won&#x27;t be popular but I think it does align some economic incentives correctly. I would also advocate implementing price increases only when solar+battery is very close to grid parity, so customers actually have a reasonable choice.