[kevindong]

In NYC at least, electric supply charges are distinct line items from electric delivery charges. Consumers do have the option of choosing who supplies their electricity (e.g. namely if you want to buy your electricity from a green source). But the local monopoly is always entitled to charge you for the service of actually delivering said electricity to you.

Both charges fluctuate from month to month. When I still lived in Indiana, the local monopoly lumped together supply and delivery charges into a single line item which, interestingly enough, was significantly lower than what I pay for just delivery now.

The following prices are for roughly April.

NYC (ConEd) delivery charge is ~$18/month + ~$0.123/kWh. Supply is usually something like ~$0.115/kWh.

Indiana (Duke Energy) total cost (including both supply and delivery) was ~$9/month + ~$0.115/kWh.

[paxys]

It's the same in California. The problem is that the delivery charges are also calculated per kWh (so, the cost of delivering a single unit of electricity to your house). But what happens when the net electricity delivered is zero?

You could argue that customers should be charged for both the electricity delivered to their house and the electricity taken away from their house, since they are using the grid and other expensive infrastructure for both. However you are now disincentivising people from installing solar and giving back their excess power.

[kube-system]

Thanks, this is the detail I was missing. Net billing for delivery makes zero sense. I think the reasonable solution is to bill the consumption direction only.