Income-based electricity bills coming (San Diego: rent, how much, homes)

[sav858]

There seems to be no limit to the ridiculousness of this state.

[stablegenius]

Originally Posted by wac_432

The PG&E proposal is pretty unclear with vague language about lowering the per kWh rate. The SDG&E proposal includes better numbers. They would charge a flat fee, based on income, for delivery and the usual wholesale market generation costs.

This sounds like an end-run around the NEM 2.0 grandfathering. It seems like the flat fee for delivery would probably apply to 2.0 customers, and so their “retail rate” for electricity would just be the generation costs, anyway, same as it is for NEM 3.0. It really screws over anyone who installed solar, unless the NEM 2.0 grandfathering lets them avoid the flat fee (unlikely).

For me, I haven’t yet installed solar and the per kWh transmission costs are much higher than the generation costs, so I like this idea.

Interesting points. I hope you are right. I'm in the same boat. My buddy got pressured into going solar before the April deadline and this would suck for him, but he also shouldn't have succumbed to the extortion.

[AnythingOutdoors]

This whole thing strikes me as an example of how government can create a tax without calling it a tax. To be clear, I'm not opposed to re-distributive policies, but rather how disingenuous this is.

Normally, if the government wants to help out lower income residents it would pass higher income taxes, and then provide a subsidy to lower income households. This would be the transparent way to achieve the same result. But passing new taxes is difficult, and there's already concern than higher income residents are leaving the state. So instead, increase electricity bills for higher income households (not a "tax" LOL) to pay for lower bills for lower income households.

[wac_432]

Originally Posted by stablegenius

Interesting points. I hope you are right. I'm in the same boat. My buddy got pressured into going solar before the April deadline and this would suck for him, but he also shouldn't have succumbed to the extortion.

Well, I don't want to see those who went solar get screwed. However, I'd be happy to just pay my present generation costs and a flat transmission fee, if SD power's flat fee is close to what SCE would charge. Oh, I'd also put in central air, if that were the case.


When I read the details of NEM 2.0 I wasn't satisfied that the terms were air-tight enough. I remember thinking: Well, they can just slap on a huge surcharge for connecting to the grid and screw me over.

Lo and behold!

I use about 25 kWh per day at present. I could build a wholly self-contained system for 50K, no incentives. If I could disconnect completely from the grid, I could garantee that the system pays for itself in 20 years--realistically ~10 years, given the yoy increase in energy costs, inflation, etc.

Sure, I'd do it. But I can't. I can't legally disconnect my property from electrical service and stop paying SCE.

Now, the gubmint and solar companies tell me I can--with subsidies and "at current rates" and other chicanery, do the same. However, that's assuming they don't change the rules in 1, 4, or 8 years. Which they keep doing.

It's a pity. I would like to go solar. I PROBABLY could do it, and save money, but to do so, I have to put my trust in the politicians and utilities, who had a crap track record of being honest and transparent.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

That's going to hit seniors on a fixed income hard.

It will and it seems odd that, as citizensadvocate mentioned, PG&E already has the CARE program for lower income residents.

Originally Posted by sav858

There seems to be no limit to the ridiculousness of this state.

This bears repeating.

They work hard in finding new ways to stick it to us more. smh

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

Normally, if the government wants to help out lower income residents it would pass higher income taxes, and then provide a subsidy to lower income households.

There's already programs available for low income residents. It's between 20-35% discount depending on income and provider. Your link is behind a paywall so I don't know the details of this "new" proposal or how it affects those existing programs.


But I can guess that none of this is meant to actually help consumers, regardless of income level. If CPUC was true to its mission, the big three energy providers in this state wouldn't be able to gouge consumers the way they do. But since we're borderline banana republic when it comes to stuff like this, we all get hosed with the state's blessing.

[stablegenius]

Originally Posted by wac_432

Well, I don't want to see those who went solar get screwed.

Neither do I... however, there are some I know who act so high and mighty about going solar, I might enjoy it a little...

Like you, I like the idea of going solar, but there are still too many questions and too many ways you can get screwed for me to pull the trigger. Not to mention, I wanted to wait until I needed a new roof at least.

[AnythingOutdoors]

Originally Posted by joosoon

There's already programs available for low income residents. It's between 20-35% discount depending on income and provider. Your link is behind a paywall so I don't know the details of this "new" proposal or how it affects those existing programs.


But I can guess that none of this is meant to actually help consumers, regardless of income level. If CPUC was true to its mission, the big three energy providers in this state wouldn't be able to gouge consumers the way they do. But since we're borderline banana republic when it comes to stuff like this, we all get hosed with the state's blessing.

Well, of course not. It's meant to prop up troubled utilities while shifting this burden onto higher income households. It's fun imagining the ways, like with all taxes, people will game the system to avoid it. Parents putting utilities in the names of their adult children (likely lower income). Or inversely, putting it in the name of a parent on fixed income. Renting a room to a college student... maybe they can "pay" the bill and you take it out of their rent. The possibilities are endless.

[skeddy]

Everybody gets to play the game.

[509]

Originally Posted by wac_432

...............................Lo and behold!

I use about 25 kWh per day at present. I could build a wholly self-contained system for 50K, no incentives. If I could disconnect completely from the grid, I could garantee that the system pays for itself in 20 years--realistically ~10 years, given the yoy increase in energy costs, inflation, etc.

Sure, I'd do it. But I can't. I can't legally disconnect my property from electrical service and stop paying SCE.

.

Why can't you disconnect form the grid?? Just don't pay your bill and they will disconnect you!!!

I have had an off-grid solar house for 25 years now. Solar works it is just very, very, expensive. But in places like Hawaii and California it can easily work.

You do have to find a heating source, air conditioning doesn't work in an off-grid setting, and you have to lower your electric consumption.

I use 5% of the electricity in my off-grid house compared to my 100% electric house that is connected to the grid.

I run my well, TV, computers, StarLink, washer, microwave, stereo and lights on my off-grid system.

That's it. Everything else runs on propane. Including the stove, fridge, hot water heater, clothes dryer, and furnace. And yep, the generator for when the batteries are drawn down due to cloudy weather.