1/2 the 'cost' of electricity is borne by grid operators, which are usually regulated monopolies. They are generally overstaffed, inneficient bureaucracies. I'm not against public service obviously but I don't think that's the issue, rather it's just related to 'monopoly' provider status.

Hydro One in Ontario was by far the largest occupant on the Sunshine list (>$100K salaries) and have always been. They pay dramatically above market wages, have more staff than they need. It's the 'old boys clubs of old boys clubs'.

If energy prices drop, they will be able to charge more money to justify more 'infra', staff and expanding budgets.

The best thing we could ever do is get rid of our dependency on the energy grid.

If our homes could be powered like our cars ... that would be amazing and open up a ton of competition in a landscape which now has almost no competition.

That said - there are definitely theoretical efficiencies at scale and if we did get rid of the grid, we may never be able to get it back.

It's plausible that 'decentralized energy' may be very advantageous in that it puts a lot of competitive pressure on the centralized elements. Then we get the best of both worlds.

Edit: value chain and institutional power dynamics is the only real way to look at all of these systems. It's incredibly naive to think that some arbitrary technology is going to change any landscape. Case and point is this issue itself - that we 'grow' fuel instead of doing something arguably more efficient is a function of structural power.