The "cost-plus" regulatory model allows utilities to earn a guaranteed return on capital investments (CAPEX) but no margin on operational expenses (OPEX). This creates a powerful, often inefficient, incentive for utilities to solve every problem by building expensive new infrastructure, even when cheaper operational solutions exist.
While solar panels are inexpensive, the total system cost to achieve 100% reliable, 24/7 coverage is massive. These "hidden costs"—enormous battery storage, transmission build-outs, and grid complexity—make the final price of a full solution comparable to nuclear. This is why hyperscalers are actively pursuing nuclear for their data centers.
Tech giants are shifting from asset-light models to massive capital expenditures, resembling utility companies. This is a red flag, as historical data shows that heavy investment in physical assets—unlike intangible assets—tends to predict future stock underperformance.
A paradoxical market reality is that sectors with heavy government involvement, like healthcare and education, experience skyrocketing costs. In contrast, less-regulated, technology-driven sectors see prices consistently fall, suggesting a correlation between intervention and price inflation.
Over the last 20 years in New England's restructured market, the primary driver of higher consumer electricity bills wasn't the cost of power itself, which fell 50% inflation-adjusted. Instead, the cost of transmission and delivery infrastructure skyrocketed by 900%, fundamentally shifting the composition of consumer bills.
A major flaw in the U.S. electricity system is its one-sided nature, where supply must constantly react to inelastic demand. Unlike the airline industry, which uses dynamic pricing to manage demand and achieve high "load factors," the power sector has failed to develop robust mechanisms for demand-side response, leading to inefficiency.
An entrepreneurial view of public goods dictates that any service should generate more value than its costs. If a division, like public transit, consistently loses money, it's a market signal that society doesn't value it at its current price. Subsidizing it is an emotional, not a logical, decision.
When a service like public transit is made free, it removes the financial incentives for efficiency and innovation. Without the pressure to compete for customers, bureaucracies swell, quality degrades, and problems like safety issues increase, ultimately making the service worse for its intended beneficiaries.
The restructuring of the U.S. electricity sector wasn't purely ideological. It was a direct response to regulated utilities making massive, incorrect bets on demand growth, building unneeded power plants, and causing prices to skyrocket for captive customers. Competition was introduced to shift this investment risk from consumers to private investors.
Metropolis couldn't sell its SaaS solution to incumbent parking operators because their business model relied on inefficient labor. These companies operate like staffing agencies on a cost-plus model, creating a fundamental disincentive to adopt tech that would reduce their core revenue stream.
Pricing electricity at thousands of physical grid locations ("nodes") is not an arbitrary complexity. The price differentials between nodes create precise financial signals that show developers the most valuable locations to build new power plants or transmission lines, helping to alleviate system congestion and improve efficiency.