When the company is a utility with a built in monopoly, with legal access to shared resources like land for transmission cables, and is the easiest path to executing policy as important as decarbonization?
Yes, if it helps the implementation of the policy.
Our entire power system lacks proper carbon taxation. So I won't cry over minor things like power companies making a bit less money when the effect is a major avenue to mitigating carbon emissions.
Arguably incenting the grid to switch over from coal/natural gas to wind/solar/storage is more important, but lets try multiple approaches and not stop what is working.
When said company is government subsidized said customer who is also a tax payer, yes. These companies use tax dollars for infrastructure investment and maintenance, at least here in CA.
Those investments theoretically benefit all of their customers.
The question is whether specific customers should benefit more than others, when the activity they are doing probably adds costs for the others.
The "supply" value of the electricity being generated is going to vary widely, it's not at all obvious that fixing it at the average cost of supplying residential electricity is going to benefit everyone buying the electricity (which as the volume of electricity involved becomes larger sort of becomes a requirement).
