If they put software people in charge of making policy on this stuff instead of a bunch of damn lawyers, these idiotic oversights would not happen. Makes you wonder what's wrong with our law schools if people who graduate from them can't figure out that any and all exploits will be used once they are found.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Cali utilities propose Income Based electricity rates
- Thread starter bkp_duke
- Start date
What makes you think the wonks who really write the laws and get the politicians to carry them don’t know what they are doing, how the exploits will be used, and who benefits from the exploits?
Same as irs. Some in the irs keep things complicated as it will benefit them when they practice privately some day.
There are no oversights.
Who benefits from the exploits is easy - the campaign donators (in this case, utilities).
How? The utilities are the ones that will be getting less revenue than projected as responsibility for the billing shifts to people with lower income levels.
Nope. The utilities will get this large fixed charge in (the same one they were pushing for with NEM 3 that there was so much push back) and disguise it as "lower rates". But there is absolutely nothing at all from them petitioning CPUC for a rate increase (something they literally do every single year).
There is also nothing at all in the law passed that prevents them from said rate increases.
charlesj
Active Member
One of the links above mentioned the proposed rates for CARE and non-Care. Can I assume the CARE is for community power members?
Would that CARE rate be on top of the IOU rate for a CARE member or instead of the IOU rate?
Would that CARE rate be on top of the IOU rate for a CARE member or instead of the IOU rate?
CARE and FERA enrollment
California Alternate Rates for Energy Program (CARE) and Family Electric Rate Assistance Program (FERA) are PG&E discount programs that help eligible customers pay their energy bills. Apply now.
www.pge.com
CARE is already income-based. If you are low-income you can submit proof of this and get your electricity rates lowered.
The SB 205 provision literally is a double-dip scenario now.
Are there any other industries where private, for profit companies, charge for products and services based on income? Is this even legal from a Federal perspective? This proposal is so far-left, I can't imagine what's next in California. This is simply another form of wealth distribution.
I can think of none, and I've been scouring for weeks looking for them.
I fully plan to join whatever lawsuit comes if this comes to reality - lawsuit for privacy invasion by a Gov entity sharing income info with a private entity, lawsuit for discrimination based upon income or whatever the attorneys want to call it.
Petition for a law passed by citizens at the next election to vacate this law. There are many options, legal and legislative, to attack this on.
And finally, if this happens, I'll be ordering up 1-2 more powerwalls, adding a gas generator, and disconnecting from the grid. In the winter, I'll supercharge the cars if necessary, and in the summer avoid stabilizing the grid by feeding solar into it (mutual loss there).
But I won't tolerate this socialism BS. My taxes already cover multiple programs to help those less fortunate, and that includes with power rate assistance.
Phone companies. There is a fee for rural costs, low income subsidies, and hard of hearing (iirc). Garbage company has a low income plan. Utilities in general. Pge has had a low income subsidy for as long as I have been paying a bill. IOW, this is not new or unique.
Not true, details matter here.
For all the programs you mentioned a low income person musy Opt-in and volunteer to share proof of their financial status to obtain a discount.
There is no program when the government shares your personal information with a company in order to let that company charge you more.
The surcharges you mentioned are flate rate or a flat percentage, and are not tied to income as this proposal is.
Details matter.
Why isn’t the CARE/FERA enough? Those already have income based verification controls. Now I’ll be forced to share my PII inclusive of tax docs with a private company. How does this comply with CCPA?
Details matter. Do you believe you will be forced to supply income information to the verification contractor? The answer to that is NO. All will be assigned the highest monthly fee unless they ask to and prove eligibility for the lower rate.
The “government” is not sharing anything. It will be up to the consumer whether or not to supply documentation (same as cares).
Default charging people the highest rate unless they share their income info with a PRIVATE, 3RD PARTY FOR-PROFIT COMPANY? Do you realize how mind-numbingly STUPID that concept is? I'm not sharing anything, and I'm not paying a F-ing tiered rate that is "income" based.
You don't know how this will be implemented, NO ONE DOES. It was literally a handful of lines in a bill in 2022, with no guidance. So the CPUC sent out requests for proposal to the utilities, and no surprise this is what the utilities came back with.
Anger is fine. But, we are stuck with what those we elected put forward. The stupid system to go against the politicians is so flawed, we all seem to turn down any of those propositions on their face.
Maybe I am older, but for whatever reason, I don’t get twisted on the privacy issues, since I know enough to know privacy is a fallacy.
Well, obviously someone is rich but it seems like a reasonable idea to me. I mean, other than California energy companies are corrupt pieces of *sugar*. You know how strange it is that people seem to understand the concept of investment when it is their money but absolutely lack it when it comes to other people.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
I know that anyone right of moderately left in California likes to call everything they don’t agree with “socialism” but there’s literally nothing about mandatory income-based fees paid to a private corporation that could even sorta be considered socialist.
This law is a joke and I can only hope it’s tied up in court for years. I’m generally of the opinion that California’s ballot initiative program is a broken joke but this sounds like a great thing to use it for. But socialist? Nah.
Similar threads
