The pricing model isn't appropriate to make people care.

What they could do instead of time-of-use pricing is a sliding multiplier that multiplies your total bill based on the ratio of on-peak to off-peak use. Make the multiplier worse based on what the total usage is.

you'll win a Nobel prize in econ if you can prove "The pricing model isn't appropriate to make people care"

I wouldn't judge this framework on a few year time horizon, but the time horizon to migrate to 100% EV fleet for Ontario.

The problem with 100% EV fleet a regular grid will be overloaded and customer's will not be incentivized to care.

This framework future proofs the Ontario grid from such a "wall".

Now that the framework exists in Ontario, prices at certain times in the day can grow 10x, 100x, 1000x where appropriate and people will care and will change their behaviors.

If time of use had even a 10x premium, people in Ontario would simply switch to simple tiered pricing which is available as an alternative to time of use pricing. Each Ontario electricity company is required to show you which would be cheaper for you and allow you to switch to the cheaper tariff to obtain cost savings.

Got it, so then Ontario has good hardware and no incentives. Everywhere else has no hardware and no incentives. Still one step better for Ontario.

If/When the Ontario grid starts to feel the pressure of EVs, it is a choice between (No Electricity + Tiered Pricing) XOR (Electricity + 10x premium Time of Use Pricing).

I have a feeling everyone will complain but understand that the only option was to keep the grid running.

they can afford not to care. this doesn't mean it's not a good solution.

it's no surprise the general population in one of the richest regions on Earth doesn't immediately change their consumption habits when a small fraction of their monthly bill gets variable

It’s not a good solution when you spend a ton of money to force people to pay the averaged out market prices per time segment and they still don’t care.

It’s like making me spend $$$ to measure and charge me for how much co2 I exhale.

It’s technically correct: that co2 does contribute to global warming.

But it’s going to cost more to meter it than I could possibly save in conservation through this newfound incentive.

it depends on the capacity premium

for example bandwidth used to be 95th percentile priced, but Netflix quickly run into problems because its peers did not want to upgrade linecards, switches, etc. (and as some of those peers were also in the media disturbution business they explicitly wanted to keep those ports maxed out)

the point is that if the network provides a close to constant capacity, then of course it makes no sense to try to price on that.

but with more and more variable supply it seems prudent to prepare the demand side too.

in Norway currently electricity prices fluctuate like crazy, and the supplier sends an email each day about the prices for the next day (though I'm not sure how guaranteed those are, of course the current price is also online)

and it varies regionally too