Income-based electricity bills coming (San Diego: appliances, month to, employment)

[Valley Boy]

Just more Democrats thinking of clever ways to steal people's money.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by Valley Boy

Just more Democrats thinking of clever ways to steal people's money.

Sure seems that way. It's hoaky.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

The money has to come from someplace. My deep pockets have lint at the bottom.

I have to check the dryer filter with all the lint from my pockets.

[Bill the Butcher]

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

Given the rates they charge even $92 isn’t much but I be asking whether it’s on top of any kilowatt hours consumed.

It is. They will also be charging a separate rate for the usage, but they claim that rate could be 33% less than what it currently is, provided the household can cut back on usage.

[Bill the Butcher]

Originally Posted by wac_432

If something like the SDG&E proposal were implemented in my area, I would:
Cancel my plans to install solar and battery, because the (unavoidable and pretty big) flat fee nulls out a good 70% of the savings I’d see by generating/storing/consuming my own power.

I don't know. We have solar, have had it for over three years now. Before solar we were paying $385 per month on average. Even being in the highest monthly flat rate of $92, if this were to go into effect, we would still net positive nearly $300 every month. We haven't paid a dime to PGE in three years.

And that $385 per month average was based on rates back in 2018/2019. If we didn't have solar today we would probably see a monthly average of $415 or more.

[Bill the Butcher]

Originally Posted by wac_432

Purchase a used EV (for the stack of incentives it comes with) as my daily commuter, as the cost for using more power drops by 60%. So using electricity to commute makes a lot more sense than gas.
And, for when everybody else figures out that blowing through thousands of grid supplied kWh is WAY cheaper than it used to be:

60% reduction? The article states that the three utilities are proposing a reduction of 33% in utility rates. But it hints that customers would need to use less power to see the 33% rate reduction not more.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

This idea is simply another way for PG&E to recapture some of the money they lost by neglecting to maintain and replace failing lines, poles and transformers, thus costing them millions of dollars in loss from the lawsuits related to the multiple wildfires in this state.

I can believe it. And it doesn't seem to be well thought out.

The provision inside AB 205 that created the income-based fixed charge caught Bill Powers, board member of the Protect Our Communities Foundation, a San Diego environmental group that often takes part in CPUC proceedings, by surprise.

“So it was in the trailer bill that nobody saw, nobody read, it got passed and here we are,” said Powers, who doubts the creation of the fixed charge will lead to the benefits it hopes to achieve.

“This scheme is obviously unfair,” Powers said. “You’re going to have a rich person pay a lot more per kilowatt-hour for electricity than a middle-class or poor person. Where is the equity in that? ... This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.”

https://www.latimes.com/business/sto...ore-affordable

[Bill the Butcher]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

I can believe it. And it doesn't seem to be well thought out.

The provision inside AB 205 that created the income-based fixed charge caught Bill Powers, board member of the Protect Our Communities Foundation, a San Diego environmental group that often takes part in CPUC proceedings, by surprise.

“So it was in the trailer bill that nobody saw, nobody read, it got passed and here we are,” said Powers, who doubts the creation of the fixed charge will lead to the benefits it hopes to achieve.

“This scheme is obviously unfair,” Powers said. “You’re going to have a rich person pay a lot more per kilowatt-hour for electricity than a middle-class or poor person. Where is the equity in that? ... This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.”

https://www.latimes.com/business/sto...ore-affordable

I think it is more about recouping the increasing losses of revenue from all of the solar customers. The thought is that most middle to high income customers have solar. I agree though that this is a terrible and unfair way of going about it. What about the middle to high income earner who does not have solar? Why should they be hit with essentially a solar tax as well?

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by Bill the Butcher

I think it is more about recouping the increasing losses of revenue from all of the solar customers. The thought is that most middle to high income customers have solar. I agree though that this is a terrible and unfair way of going about it. What about the middle to high income earner who does not have solar? Why should they be hit with essentially a solar tax as well?

Hmm. Could be.

I remember some years back, we were asked to conserve water due to the drought and customers complied. Then, revenue dropped for the companies and they began raising rates to compensate for their loss. I'll just say it didn't go well and leave it at that. So companies that need money are going to do it in some way. Either raise rates or get creative like this and dole out the increase based on income.

Capitalism. Gotta love it

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Bill the Butcher

The thought is that most middle to high income customers have solar. I agree though that this is a terrible and unfair way of going about it.

Although those that even have solar appear to be a small number in California.

More than 1.5 million homes, businesses and other utility customers in California have rooftop solar panels:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/15/cali...omeowners.html

The fact that solar-rooftop owners are more affluent than those without solar can be an uncomfortable topic in debates...
https://www.newsdata.com/california_...72564b0c2.html

https://www.electricrate.com/solar-energy/california/