Is energy access a human right?
When #energy suppliers refuse to serve someone, are they violating #humanRights?
Note:
* heating during the winter keeps people alive
* refrigeration keeps food safe
* some people rely on life-support systems that require electricity
OTOH, the above needs can be met using PV panels, batteries, a tent inside the house for extra insulation, etc. So it’s a messy question.
For the #poll below:
HR=human right
DoHR= #UN Declaration of Human Rights (#UNDoHR)
[ ] energy is a HR both philosophically & per DoHR
[ ] energy is a HR philosophically but NOT by DoHR
[ ] energy is not a HR philosophically but is per DoHR
[ ] energy is NOT a HR philosophically or by DoHR
Should everyone have access to pay for the energy they consume? Sure.
The problem in some regions (e.g. Europe for sure & probably China) is the utility companies force payment by bank transfer. So if someone is excluded from the banking system because banks refuse them or the consumer refuses the bank, they’re stuffed because the suppliers will not accept cash. The US somewhat protects against that because legal tender laws ensure that all debts can be paid in cash.
But in any case, indeed this is the no-brainer case. People should not be refused energy by way of exclusion due to payment methods.
Should they be granted free energy they aren’t paying for? Um, erm, well…
This is the case Europe does better than the US.
I think in the US they just cut you off if you can’t pay your bills (though there are probably some welfare programs probably mitigate that to some extent).
In Europe, they don’t just pull the plug on you. No matter how deep your debt is, they throttle you so you have a little energy but your consumption is limited. This is not a solid option though because the throttling is only possible if you have a contract for energy to begin with. If you just moved and don’t yet have a contract, then they can cut you off. I’m not sure if suppliers can refuse to let you start a contract, but the contracts are worded such that you agree to pay by bank transfer, thus unbanked people are essentially forced to sign a contract they cannot satisfy.
Define “access”.
Should everyone have access to pay for the energy they consume? Sure.
Should they be granted free energy they aren’t paying for? Um, erm, well…
The problem in some regions (e.g. Europe for sure & probably China) is the utility companies force payment by bank transfer. So if someone is excluded from the banking system because banks refuse them or the consumer refuses the bank, they’re stuffed because the suppliers will not accept cash. The US somewhat protects against that because legal tender laws ensure that all debts can be paid in cash.
But in any case, indeed this is the no-brainer case. People should not be refused energy by way of exclusion due to payment methods.
This is the case Europe does better than the US.
I think in the US they just cut you off if you can’t pay your bills (though there are probably some welfare programs probably mitigate that to some extent).
In Europe, they don’t just pull the plug on you. No matter how deep your debt is, they throttle you so you have a little energy but your consumption is limited. This is not a solid option though because the throttling is only possible if you have a contract for energy to begin with. If you just moved and don’t yet have a contract, then they can cut you off. I’m not sure if suppliers can refuse to let you start a contract, but the contracts are worded such that you agree to pay by bank transfer, thus unbanked people are essentially forced to sign a contract they cannot satisfy.