On my first read of this, it makes sense though. The mileage of infrastructure is the same regardless of use. Those powerlines still need maintenance even if LEDs are making homes more efficient.

Sure, but I'm billed by kw-Hr. Bill me for the infrastructure if that is what costs money.

This is one of the stupidest comments I’ve ever read on this site.

I’m billed by the cheeseburger. Bill me for the burger flipper if that is what costs money.

I’m billed by the bread loaf. Bill me for the rent and shipping and electricity if that is what costs money.

Burgers and bread loafs compete on all their costs, different competing outlets actually differ in those costs, and people choose which ones to use.

Utilities don't have that. Everyone is stuck paying for both infrastructure and use, so it makes sense to charge them separately.

If each neighborhood had exactly one restaurant that everyone used for all their food, maybe it would make sense to split the burger flipper costs evenly.

My network and kWh cost are split and the network cost have risen far less than kWh cost. Also the network cost are constant. Looking at where those are used for the main cost are in peak usage capacity which efficiency actually lowers.

This would make much more sense, but if they billed by network cost I think people would quickly figure out there is no real reason to conserve electricity here. The cost of generation is so low (in fact negative sometimes) that it doesn't make a bit of difference.