As a comparison measure, energy cost made a lot of sense when economies of scale dominated, for example, in the electric power industry monopoly. The assumption that customers could be fitted into a few classes was critical in that sense.
It is under that underlying assumption that, according to the featured article GE survey: Millions of Americans willing to pay more for a better grid
, posted in SmartGridNews.com, “The Grid Resilience Survey conducted by Harris Poll in May and June is based on responses from more than 2,000 participants. The survey found that 41% of Americans living east of the Mississippi River, and 34% living west of the Mississippi, are ‘more than willing to pay’ the additional $10 to ensure that the grid is more reliable.”
But the problem is that such grid resiliency monopoly is a supply side utility point of view that used to makes sense for the average customer from the utility bill socialized perspective is now simplistic. As customers have a much widely array of preferences, average public perception no longer makes sense.
What makes sense is a demand side customer point of about competitive resiliency, in which customers have the opportunity to consider investments in complementary resiliency resources to get the value they need at their percieved least individual cost. This is captured in the EWPC blog post Resiliency proposal customers and society are not expecting but will love
That blog post is based on the EWPC blog post Great electric service
, which shows that it has been known for quite some time that a grid resiliency monopoly is not needed: “Back in 1978, the late MIT professor Fred C. Schweppe, wrote that there was actually not need to avoid massive power failures. He introduced the concept of a societal definition of a blackout to contrast it to the technical definition that is being used in the United States, China and other countries said to be following suit with smart-grid projects. Once that is understood, the public will respond by having supplemental energy sources.”