[quote=“MarkG, post:13, topic:148”]
Generation and storage is hard to exclude
[/quote]On the other hand, lumping them in with reticulation is probably a mistake.
What part of the reticulation network could a prosumer own? What good would it do them?
For example, I live on the land. I nominally own the poles and wires from my house to the edge of my property. Until a decade or so ago, the public utility maintained the infrastructure on my land (checking the condition of poles, trimming vegetation, etc). Then we all got notices that the responsibility was now ours. None of us had the slightest idea what to do. It took a couple of years for the (by then) semi-privatised utilities to make necessary information available. They never quite managed to get that right (the information was outdated or just wrong). After a few deaths and the occasional bush fire from fallen lines, they’ve quietly resumed maintaining lines on private land (as a “free service”). I own part of the reticulation network, but what good does it do me?
A policy which does not differentiate between generation and reticulation will fail. I’d argue that we should consider further differentiation between generation and storage, transmission and monitoring/control.
For an individual, grid defection may be attractive. For society and the economy, I’d say it’s a negative. Unfortunately, incumbents in their death throes are driving defection. We need a policy that motivates participation in the common good that is the grid.