Cali utilities propose Income Based electricity rates

[sunwarriors]

Didn't see this posted in this thread, but found this post about the 4 different proposals:

https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/12obv73

Some of these other ones are more stomachable (if that's a word) unlike that crazy highly publicized one. Not surprising the crazy one is from the IOUs.

 

[tivoboy]

Remember (if I recall correctly) this proposal of a scaled flat monthly fee, plus usage X electricity rate is supposed to DROP the per kWh rate by over a third. So, it will be a bit hard to tell until implemented if one is going to be paying much less, same or more than current usage X .42+ per kWh. That rate drop of ~30% applies to ALL households, but the scaled fixed base level charges applies to each household based on household income.

We usually manage to use LESS than our comparables by about 20-25%, probably fall into the middle range from REPORTED income so my simple spreadsheet seems to indicate another savings of ~25%.

What I don’t now is whether or not this applies to the rate we pay for our electricity which we get from a third party community Solar providor which is already about 20% cheaper than PGE. PGE credits the amount for THEIR wholesale price per kWh to our bill and then we pay the third party solar company about 20% less per kWh. Historically this was made up by the PCIA charge that PGE was allowed to pass through, but now that charge had ratcheted down to nearly nothing. So, not sure how this will flush out when it comes to a 30% discount in energy rates per kWh.

 

[sunwarriors]

Remember (if I recall correctly) this proposal of a scaled flat monthly fee, plus usage X electricity rate is supposed to DROP the per kWh rate by over a third. So, it will be a bit hard to tell until implemented if one is going to be paying much less, same or more than current usage X .42+ per kWh. That rate drop of ~30% applies to ALL households, but the scaled fixed base level charges applies to each household based on household income.

We usually manage to use LESS than our comparables by about 20-25%, probably fall into the middle range from REPORTED income so my simple spreadsheet seems to indicate another savings of ~25%.

What I don’t now is whether or not this applies to the rate we pay for our electricity which we get from a third party community Solar providor which is already about 20% cheaper than PGE. PGE credits the amount for THEIR wholesale price per kWh to our bill and then we pay the third party solar company about 20% less per kWh. Historically this was made up by the PCIA charge that PGE was allowed to pass through, but now that charge had ratcheted down to nearly nothing. So, not sure how this will flush out when it comes to a 30% discount in energy rates per kWh.

There is nothing, I don't think which will prevent rate increases after the fixed monthly fee is implemented. Sorta like charge $50/month now, lower rates by 20-30%, and in a year or two, raise rates back to old rates or higher (just because) and we're back to where we are now.

Some of the proposales with $0/month for low income and much lower monthly fees (remember, we started at $0/month), I can get behind though actually, but I can see them raising it as well later.

I can just see that high income tech worker in a 500 sqft apartment who travels/consults for work/rarely home and normally has a $10/month bill now has to pay $128/month just because of income. That just seems criminal/wrong on all levels.

The whole we need to charge you more because we screwed up and burned people's homes, killed people, having to support rural areas, etc just seems wrong too.

Similar to monthly subscriptions, I think any high monthly fee is going to screw over anyone with solar too.

 

[GreenCoffee]

 

[tivoboy]

I can just see that high income tech worker in a 500 sqft apartment who travels/consults for work/rarely home and normally has a $10/month bill now has to pay $128/month just because of income. That just seems criminal/wrong on all levels.

Similar to monthly subscriptions, I think any high monthly fee is going to screw over anyone with solar too.

Raising rates after the fact is certainly possible, and some amount should be expected.

I’ll just add that I doubt there is anyone who is paying only $10 a month for their electricity, regardless of overall home size (that doesn’t really drive it up other than direct costs)

I would doubt that just a regular domicile, small like 500 sqft apartment (that would be most like a studio) is going to have a fridge, some appliances in the kitchen, 1-2 TV’s, 1-2 cable boxes or DVR (even worse) possibly some other appliances and certainly power adaptors, lights, maybe a fan or air purifier. Worse/better would be an electric water heater, but I doubt that.

I would doubt that their HOURLY drain/usage from those simply plugged in electric item would be less than 200-300 WATT per HOUR. Just running that over a month and 24 hours a day is about $30 a month, that’s without ANY additional usage while one is home. Range, heaters, lights, actually turning the TV’s ON and running them.

Yes, it’s still pretty low and they might now start with a $50 a month BASE charge, plus some variable that is lower. But it’s not like going from $10 to $75 now, it’s more like going from most likely $75-100.

 

[GreenCoffee]

Based on the new fee structures from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that rewards lower credit scores and penalizes higher ones, this is all but certain to pass in some form, bummer!

 

[DP26]

There is no plan which all would like. A true per kWh for all costs? Nope. Those who live rural would not be happy with the cost to run lines and a transformer. Or depending on the plan, those who are wire only from a substation would be unhappy.

Arguments such as I only use 500kwh a year or I only have it as a Backup don’t fly either, any more than you don’t have to pay x hundred thousand for a home because you are only their 10% of the time. Your well still cost tens of thousands, even if you have also setup rain collection for most of your needs.

None is truly equal to all. Ask the reservations how their guaranteed water is doing, and how it is they cannot sell it like others can.

 

[DP26]

There are folks paying $10 a monthly for elec. Ask around. Small apartment. CARE. Utilities have to waive fees (even SMUD) and discount 35%.

Your MD or DO may have gone through college on food stamps and care, and residency at $8-10 an hour of pay. (Congress, and us who elected them, has them hostage to the match system and limited pay for up to 80 hours per week of residency.) See physician shortage if you have not noticed.

The grad student you are getting your 4 year degree instruction “from” is likely on food stamps and care while tenure folks rarely teach.

 

[tangible1]

Edison monthly bills could change for many customers due to new state law

Customers for California’s three major power companies can expect to see some big changes in their monthly electricity bills.

www.ocregister.com

The proposal, as quoted from the article:

Here’s how the fixed charges would work in the PG&E service territory. The numbers are based on a four-person household:

• Households earning less than $28,000 a year would pay a fixed charge of $15 a month on their electric bills.
• Households with annual income from $28,000 to $69,000 would pay $30 a month.
• Households earning from $69,000 to $180,000 would pay $51 a month.
• Those with incomes above $180,000 would pay $92 a month.

**************************************************************************************************

On the one hand, I suppose it is no different from income tax brackets. I have personally benefited from tax incentives to "go green" so money asked of me to help the general population do the same should theoretically not bother me.

On the other hand...something about this whole thing is really disturbing.

What are your thoughts?

so where is any incentive to do better in life?
This like the issues with Welfare - incentives to stay on government dole, hide income, hide significant others, refuse to work

 

[STS-134]

so where is any incentive to do better in life?
This like the issues with Welfare - incentives to stay on government dole, hide income, hide significant others, refuse to work

This doesn't create issues like that. It just creates an incentive to game the system. Got a family member or friend with a lower income than yours? That person goes on everyone's utility bills as the responsible party.

 

[tangible1]

This doesn't create issues like that. It just creates an incentive to game the system. Got a family member or friend with a lower income than yours? That person goes on everyone's utility bills as the responsible party.

like I said.
give it the name you choose, the incentives are skewed.

 

[bkp_duke]

Remember (if I recall correctly) this proposal of a scaled flat monthly fee, plus usage X electricity rate is supposed to DROP the per kWh rate by over a third. So, it will be a bit hard to tell until implemented if one is going to be paying much less, same or more than current usage X .42+ per kWh. That rate drop of ~30% applies to ALL households, but the scaled fixed base level charges applies to each household based on household income.

We usually manage to use LESS than our comparables by about 20-25%, probably fall into the middle range from REPORTED income so my simple spreadsheet seems to indicate another savings of ~25%.

What I don’t now is whether or not this applies to the rate we pay for our electricity which we get from a third party community Solar providor which is already about 20% cheaper than PGE. PGE credits the amount for THEIR wholesale price per kWh to our bill and then we pay the third party solar company about 20% less per kWh. Historically this was made up by the PCIA charge that PGE was allowed to pass through, but now that charge had ratcheted down to nearly nothing. So, not sure how this will flush out when it comes to a 30% discount in energy rates per kWh.

I utilize nearly nothing from the grid except on weeks where there are multiple days in a row of clouds and I deplete the powerwalls. I've built a powerwall+solar system that in 4 years of usage provides us with 99% of our needs day in and day out. We pay a monthly connectivity charge for a grid we already do not use much.

So yes, this proposal would about 10X our annual payments to SDG&E (from ~$120/yr to $1200/yr). I don't derive much "value" from that increase, and would prefer to spend it on my own infrastructure if this passes (i.e. 2 more powerwalls and a generator).

I have a supercharger 2 miles from the house, I can also charge there in the winter to keep from depleting the powerwalls. Not convenient, but it's an option.

 

[DP26]

like I said.
give it the name you choose, the incentives are skewed.

Opportunity to max savings is not new. Tax system, choice of domicile, better tax preparer than self prep, etc.

Whomever lobbied for the winning side of the new law did better than those who prefer the status quo. I still say anyone who ends up paying the higher rate either chooses to or chooses not to. Same as the CA millionaire tax. It is so simple to buy the knowledge to legally shift income. Many, including some those we elect, have no normal income.

 

[bkp_duke]

Arguments such as I only use 500kwh a year or I only have it as a Backup don’t fly either, any more than you don’t have to pay x hundred thousand for a home because you are only their 10% of the time. Your well still cost tens of thousands, even if you have also setup rain collection for most of your needs.

You have a CHOICE what home you buy, what appliances you buy and keep plugged in.

There is ZERO choice here.

 

[tangible1]

Opportunity to max savings is not new. Tax system, choice of domicile, better tax preparer than self prep, etc.

Whomever lobbied for the winning side of the new law did better than those who prefer the status quo. I still say anyone who ends up paying the higher rate either chooses to or chooses not to. Same as the CA millionaire tax. It is so simple to buy the knowledge to legally shift income. Many, including some those we elect, have no normal income.

and again, skews the calculation.

the only truly fair methodology is every pays the same rate.

 

[STS-134]

You have a CHOICE what home you buy, what appliances you buy and keep plugged in.

There is ZERO choice here.

You can go off grid.

 

[tangible1]

You can go off grid.

go ahead. try. you'll find some challenges, to say the least.

 

[bkp_duke]

You can go off grid.

Actually, there is a lot of debate in CA that it may not be legal to go off grid.

That's certainly my plan, but legal scholars have weighed in that as the law is structured, it may not be legal to try that.

https://www.cailaw.org/media/files/IEL/Publications/2016/grid-detection-vol10no1.pdf

There are other sites giving anecdotal reports that they can go off grid, but the regulations and law are . . . murky on this. Guess we will find out.


EDIT - plus, here in SD, one utility controls both NG and electricity. What happens when I cancel one, they tell me I can't, and I stop paying? They shut down the NG. I can't yet transition to all electric appliances.

 

[STS-134]

like I said.
give it the name you choose, the incentives are skewed.

How much do you want to bet that the idiots doing the calculations at the IOUs and at the CPUC are assuming that nobody is going to switch the responsible party on their bills? In doing revenue calculations, politicians generally assume that nothing will change except the new policy they're creating and almost never consider the entire feedback loop in terms of how a change in policy creates incentives for people to reduce their expenses and thus (in this case) changes the makeup of the income levels of the customers of the IOUs.

 

[cpa]

How much do you want to bet that the idiots doing the calculations at the IOUs and at the CPUC are assuming that nobody is going to switch the responsible party on their bills? In doing revenue calculations, politicians generally assume that nothing will change except the new policy they're creating and almost never consider the entire feedback loop in terms of how a change in policy creates incentives for people to reduce their expenses and thus (in this case) changes the makeup of the income levels of the customers of the IOUs.

It is the exact same thinking that taxpayers use when Congress makes substantive changes to the Internal Revenue Code. It takes a few years for the lawyers and accountants to figure out the weaknesses and exploit those weaknesses in a lawful manner. Or, at least a plausible manner that will only be resolved in court if the authorities can figure out what was done, and they disagree.

Over the years it has been my experience that many "wealthy*" taxpayers eventually downsize to a small condo or even rent a luxury apartment that will allow more time for travel and less time for maintenance and upkeep on a larger single family dwelling. Their electric consumption might be in the mid-hundreds of kWh in most months because they are absent or because they just don't use a whole lot of juice when they are home. An income-based flat fee could easily increase the unit cost of electricity for these folks by 50% or more each month. That is plain confiscatory and absurd.

*Everyone has a different definition of wealthy, so I am not going to attempt to draw a line. And how will this proposed legislation ferret out the difference between a one-off windfall (say the sale of their primary residence) and a consistently high income year-over-year? Will there be a two year lag like the IRMAA for people on Medicare who have to pay much larger monthly premiums in year 3 because their income exceeded the baseline amount in year 1?