Income-based electricity bills coming (Los Angeles, San Diego: apartments, live, prices)

[L-Costa]

It means electricity bill increase.

Current bill: $150 usage + $20 fees = $170
Proposed bill: ($150 minus 30%) plus $128 proposed fixed fee = $228

I have electric car which costs me about $70 dollars a month to charge. Households with low electricity usage will see even higher bill increase.

[Thekdog]

Paying for all those mandates and fire safety improvements we delayed for years

[Norrov]

This bill sucks. Love California but hate how they punish you for being responsible. So my paid off solar panels are effectively useless now? Great.

Awesome, private companies with income based prices. This will be coming your water and gas bills next! When are they going to team up with grocery stores and have income based groceries?

**** this state, wish I didn’t enjoy living here so much. In 50 years there’s going to be no incentive to get a good career when you have to give your earnings away to people who hold entry level jobs their entire life.

[Bill the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Norrov

This bill sucks. Love California but hate how they punish you for being responsible. So my paid off solar panels are effectively useless now? Great.

Awesome, private companies with income based prices. This will be coming your water and gas bills next! When are they going to team up with grocery stores and have income based groceries?

**** this state, wish I didn’t enjoy living here so much. In 50 years there’s going to be no incentive to get a good career when you have to give your earnings away to people who hold entry level jobs their entire life.

Useless? Hardly.

Our bill before solar was $385 per month on average. That was four years ago. Likely $425 or more per month now if we did not have solar. Our current bill is $0 per month. So even paying $92 per month if this new rate structure passes we are saving around $300 a month.

This savings from solar will gradually decrease as the years and decades go by as the rules change but I knew that going in. In fact, that is why I did not want to wait around when it came to adding solar. I wanted to get it ASAP so that we could get the maximum benefits for as long as possible.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by Bill the Butcher

Useless? Hardly.

Our bill before solar was $385 per month on average. That was four years ago. Likely $425 or more per month now if we did not have solar. Our current bill is $0 per month. So even paying $92 per month if this new rate structure passes we are saving around $300 a month.

This savings from solar will gradually decrease as the years and decades go by as the rules change but I knew that going in. In fact, that is why I did not want to wait around when it came to adding solar. I wanted to get it ASAP so that we could get the maximum benefits for as long as possible.

How much are you paying each month for the panels? How long before you have to replace them.

[Bill the Butcher]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

How much are you paying each month for the panels? How long before you have to replace them.

Paid the solar off about 1.5 years ago. This fall will mark four years since they were installed. I would say they will last another 20 years. Break even point was about six years but maybe less because I based that on the electric rates we were being charged back in 2019.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by Bill the Butcher

Paid the solar off about 1.5 years ago. This fall will mark four years since they were installed. I would say they will last another 20 years. Break even point was about six years but maybe less because I based that on the electric rates we were being charged back in 2019.

Thank you for the break down.

[tstieber]

Tying utility fees to income is completely arbitrary. In fact, neither income, property value, nor square footage has any connection to the price of a kilowatt-hour. It would be like charging more per gallon of gas if you drive a more expensive car. It sounds 'equitable' to some people, but it's just as arbitrary as charging more for having a certain shoe size or hair color. The only thing that should affect electricity bills is how much you buy, and for those in low income brackets, offer discounts and subsidies. We're already doing that. This idea is so random and complicated, but right now, there is a lot of sentiment that rich people are terrible and exploitative and need to be held accountable. Thankfully, we're not among that group, but it's still weird.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by tstieber

Tying utility fees to income is completely arbitrary. In fact, neither income, property value, nor square footage has any connection to the price of a kilowatt-hour. It would be like charging more per gallon of gas if you drive a more expensive car. It sounds 'equitable' to some people, but it's just as arbitrary as charging more for having a certain shoe size or hair color. The only thing that should affect electricity bills is how much you buy, and for those in low income brackets, offer discounts and subsidies. We're already doing that.

The stated intent of AB205 is to make sure that the lowest income tier pays less without any changes to their usage. The income-based fee is meant to pay for infrastructure and delivery of that power. That those two things are presented as separate, is the big ruse.


Regardless, if the proposals each individual energy provider gives to CPUC don't live up to the language of the law, then what? That's what I'm wondering about mostly. This is supposed to lower energy costs for some. I don't have a lot of confidence that there will be any recourse for ratepayers for failure to deliver on that promise.

[CA4Now]

There are many details yet to be worked out by the PUC before final approval is expected in 2024. One of the most important will be coming up with a realistic and secure way to verify household income without giving utilities access to customers’ financial information. Whether that’s through a state agency using tax data or an outside party, such as a credit agency, this process should be as automatic, painless and protective of privacy as possible.

But if done carefully, this new approach could help customers save money as they replace their gas-fueled cars and furnaces with electric vehicles, heat pumps and other zero-emission technology, and roughly double their household electricity use.

To be clear, this plan does nothing to limit the total amount of money utilities are allowed to bill their customers in the future, and the PUC continues to approve massive rate hikes that are making power less affordable. California already has some of the highest electricity rates in the nation. They have roughly doubled over the last decade and are forecasted to rise as much as 26% by 2025.

California needs to race toward home and vehicle electrification to confront a worsening climate crisis. If done with care and caution, this redesign of electricity rates and charges can smooth the transition to a zero-emission future and minimize customer backlash. Regulators should take pains to get it right.

California shouldn’t let power companies get their way on our electric bills:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...eed-cautiously