Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pridkett t1_iy81wa7 wrote

Reply to comment by F__kCustomers in Eversource, United Illuminating have spent millions to lobby Connecticut lawmakers by Toybasher

>* CT families purchase majority stock in Eversource and force it into submission. > >* We buy enough stock that dividends cancel out the electric bill.

That doesn't work from a math perspective. Eversource has a market cap of $28.46 billion. There are 3.6 million people in Connecticut. A controlling stake (50% + 1 share) would require every man, woman, and child to purchase $3722 of Eversource - and that's before the price starts to go up as people realize they can sell for more.

Eversource currently pays a dividend of $0.6375/share/quarter - or $2.55/yr for a little over a 3% yield. For the math on the dividends to work out they would need to collect 97% of their revenue from sources other than home electricity.

> * Every single family home gets a Solar roof and two storage batteries. Then setup another panel and shut off the one for the utility killing it for good.

The economics on this are staggering. For panels and three Powerwalls, that don't even cover all of the electric needs in my house, especially during the winter, I paid $32,000ish before incentives in 2020. Prices have gone up since then. A solar roof is even more expensive. Plus the replacement cost of batteries. Even I admit that financially it didn't make sense for me to Powerwalls, but they're cool toys and I don't like losing power.

This plan, even if you could get enough panels and installers, and enough people had good roofs, would be incredibly expensive. There are about 1.5 million residential homes in Connecticut of which 1.3 million are occupied and 900,000 are owner occupied - I'm leaving out apartments because their math gets difficult. At $30,000 a house for just the owner occupied houses, we're at $27bn, which is, purely coincidentally, the market cap of Eversource. And such a plan does NOTHING to help out renters who are often in need of more help because of generally lesser quality housing stock. In fact it would almost certainly hurt them as individual solar deployments typically have a net negative externality on the grid because their spikier demand.

7

krugo t1_iy8vdv3 wrote

$2.55/year per $80 share. There are other considerations, but if your Eversource bill is $100/mo, or $1200/year, you can somewhat account for your annual bill with a meager 470.59 shares, or a cool $37,647 investment. NBD.

2

F__kCustomers t1_iy82xml wrote

  1. We’ve already paid more than 27 billion to over the last 20 years. I am pretty sure if you gave the ability for homes to power themselves, tax payers would line up. The property taxes we pay could have given every a Solar Roof years ago. Instead we got these Solar scams.

  2. The goal is control Eversource with stock buys and it doesn’t have to be every one. As long as they are told to help families, not hurt them.

  3. There are plenty of other dividend paying stocks. At this point, that seems to be the only way to offset the cost of this nonsense. You buy enough shares so it pays for the electric bill.

They have no interest is helping, curbing spending, being honest, defending CT citizens, and just saying no.

−2