Cali utilities propose Income Based electricity rates

[ucmndd]

Like I said in another thread on this topic, if this comes to pass we’re “moving out” and letting my 18 year old daughter live here on the CARE plan. They can fugg right off.

 

[qdeathstar]

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.

Brah if I don’t like it it’s socialist.

 

[ucmndd]

Brah if I don’t like it it’s socialist.

Libtards AMIRITE?

 

[DP26]

If I was dumb enough to get elected, I might allow the utilities to have a base fee for access and a kWh charge. I don’t know enough to comment on whether or not there should be steps for kWh, but that does not seem to rule up in this thread. Then, if the state wants to help out with programs, then can do it themselves, through tax credits (refundable) monthly checks, etc. The state and local governments already play games with rebates and credits (such as tax incentives to move a business or to build a station/arena) so managing monthly checks flying low income or some sort of ebt style card would not be a burden.

 

[ThomasD]

I disagree with what California is going to do but I do understand it. People who have Solar and Battery backup are usually in a higher income bracket. They get less power from the grid when they can generate Solar and pay lower rates. Meanwhile lower income folks pay more for electricity do to the fact that they can't afford Solar to offset their electric bill.

 

[ucmndd]

I disagree with what California is going to do but I do understand it. People who have Solar and Battery backup are usually in a higher income bracket. They get less power from the grid when they can generate Solar and pay lower rates. Meanwhile lower income folks pay more for electricity due to the fact that they can't afford Solar to offset their electric bill.

The problem is there already exists many rational and much easier to implement solutions to such a problem.

In principle I am not against a “ready to serve” fee, a baseline across the board monthly cost disassociated from energy expenses for connecting to the grid. This makes a lot of sense and is how many other utilities do it.

I’m not even against subsidizing that cost for low earners who can self-select and submit eligibility info to qualify. This is effectively what the already existing CARE program does.

The proposed implementation is insane, creating progressively more expensive tiers and requiring everyone to share their income data with a private corporation for a commodity.

Can you imagine having to share your income data with the supermarket so they can decide how much you should pay for a loaf of bread?

 

[whydontwe]

I disagree with what California is going to do but I do understand it. People who have Solar and Battery backup are usually in a higher income bracket. They get less power from the grid when they can generate Solar and pay lower rates. Meanwhile lower income folks pay more for electricity do to the fact that they can't afford Solar to offset their electric bill.

Then there should be better incentives for low income payers to purchase or lease solar and battery and EVs. Penalizing those who have generational wealth or worked their asses off to make 180k+ should not be penalized for a commoditized service.

 

[sunwarriors]

I disagree with what California is going to do but I do understand it. People who have Solar and Battery backup are usually in a higher income bracket. They get less power from the grid when they can generate Solar and pay lower rates. Meanwhile lower income folks pay more for electricity do to the fact that they can't afford Solar to offset their electric bill.

The bottom line problem is low income people or poor people simply don't own homes. No home ownership means no solar/batteries at all. It is what it is, but with solar, a lot of it also happens to be where people choose to spend their $$. There are also wealthy people without solar due to maybe low energy usage, not staying long term, etc...

Charging/penalizing based on income just seems wrong and I'm for all having a flat fee for everyone, regardless of income. CARES, etc...should take care of people truly in need. I've been on CARES too so yeah, energy way back was super cheap when I was on it, but the worst proposed $100+/month doesn't address conservation, climate, common sense, etc.

Lower income people also pay more because they had a worst start in life/jobs/family/etc...

 

[tangible1]

I disagree with what California is going to do but I do understand it. People who have Solar and Battery backup are usually in a higher income bracket. They get less power from the grid when they can generate Solar and pay lower rates. Meanwhile lower income folks pay more for electricity do to the fact that they can't afford Solar to offset their electric bill.

the concept of the public utility is to apportion very large infrastructure costs across the whole of the user base they serve.
smaller, more distributed electric generation systems would be less efficient, less cost effective, and create a mish-mash of varying systems.

however, the onset of residential solar equipment and the subsidies to encourage them has encouraged the more wealthy to essentially create such a 'distributed' system.
First, the subsidies need to end.
Second, if their energy is to be sold back to the grid, it must only be at prices similar to the cost of generation, not at the retail rates as currently configured.
Then we will see how the issues get sorted out. Trying to 'rationalize by fiat based on income' is NOT the way to go. It will simply result in more balkanization.

Frankly, the 'regressive' nature of energy costs is a false narrative.
The less wealthy use far less energy than more well-off.
And to be honest, our society rewards the successful with access to better housing, better schooling, better healthcare, and more easily absorbed utility expenses.
And that's the way it should be......people need to understand there are costs to certain life choices.
There are always exceptions, but there it is and it shouldn't be disguised.

 

[David_Cary]

Energy costs are definitely regressive. Just because some wealthy use a lot more energy doesn't negate that. That certainly doesn't make it a "false narrative".
There is a certain base level of energy use that 80%+ will have and it goes something like this
- driving a car - to get to work/school/the doctor/buy food
- heating, cooling and lighting a house/dwelling. And computers/refrigeration etc

I have paid nearly the same in utilities in an apartment as a newer much larger house.
Gas for a 20 year old vehicle isn't that different than a new one. Then new one is less generally. EVs are definitely less energy cost - especially outside of a few outliers like CA.

So the basics are about the same for everyone. Increasing them is regressive. It hurts the poor more which is what I generally think of as regressive. Do you have a different definition?

I have always been a fan of dramatically increasing energy costs but it is mostly regressive which is why it generally needs to be countered with a rebate for the poor. Personally, I use .1% of my income on direct energy costs. So yeah - 10X it. I would love it. I could handle 50X without a sweat - I am sure I would just go to zero in that case. Only a few of the top 5% can say that. Almost none of the bottom 80% can say that.

Solar incentives are there to have an environmental impact. It isn't there to make electricity costs fair. Or to fix income inequality. Now - it was easy to see that with high electricity rates, that the incentives would benefit the rich. Much like EV incentives do - and just because you may not have gotten them, Tesla would not be what it is today without incentives.

You obviously embrace income inequality. There probably is a certain amount that is helpful and motivational. There is also a certain amount that is damaging to a society. I believe we have crossed that line. I know plenty of wealthy that use obscene amounts of energy. But most aren't that far off from the poor. The number one for most is driving and the poorer have to live further from work etc. And then many rent and have little control on the quality of their insulation or their HVAC unit.

Not sure what you mean by balkanization. Maybe it doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[tangible1]

Energy costs are definitely regressive. Just because some wealthy use a lot more energy doesn't negate that. That certainly doesn't make it a "false narrative".
There is a certain base level of energy use that 80%+ will have and it goes something like this
- driving a car - to get to work/school/the doctor/buy food
- heating, cooling and lighting a house/dwelling. And computers/refrigeration etc

I have paid nearly the same in utilities in an apartment as a newer much larger house.
Gas for a 20 year old vehicle isn't that different than a new one. Then new one is less generally. EVs are definitely less energy cost - especially outside of a few outliers like CA.

So the basics are about the same for everyone. Increasing them is regressive. It hurts the poor more which is what I generally think of as regressive. Do you have a different definition?

I have always been a fan of dramatically increasing energy costs but it is mostly regressive which is why it generally needs to be countered with a rebate for the poor. Personally, I use .1% of my income on direct energy costs. So yeah - 10X it. I would love it. I could handle 50X without a sweat - I am sure I would just go to zero in that case. Only a few of the top 5% can say that. Almost none of the bottom 80% can say that.

Solar incentives are there to have an environmental impact. It isn't there to make electricity costs fair. Or to fix income inequality. Now - it was easy to see that with high electricity rates, that the incentives would benefit the rich. Much like EV incentives do - and just because you may not have gotten them, Tesla would not be what it is today without incentives.

You obviously embrace income inequality. There probably is a certain amount that is helpful and motivational. There is also a certain amount that is damaging to a society. I believe we have crossed that line. I know plenty of wealthy that use obscene amounts of energy. But most aren't that far off from the poor. The number one for most is driving and the poorer have to live further from work etc. And then many rent and have little control on the quality of their insulation or their HVAC unit.ill-defined or

Not sure what you mean by balkanization. Maybe it doesn't mean what you think it means.

by your logic, government is our only solution. even when the problems are ill-defined or false.
by balkanization, pockets of poor or poorly run, and pockets of wealth or efficiently run, are created.

the narrative that energy prices are evil or unfair and thus require 'corrective action' are false.
energy costs are socialized, deliberately and with forethought, via public utilities and thus objectively true and fair. until subverted.

you wishfully believe energy costs 'should be' higher, but you understand them to be regressive? both sides of the argument?

if you could string together concepts that objectively concluded in a better outcome, I might follow. but not in this missive do you make such a case.

 

[Konicom04]

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?

Such ideas angers me beyond believe.
I came here 30 years ago running away from a mayhem created by socialism.
Here we go again.

Someone please build a wall and seal off the state of California so that their ideas aren't tainting already tainted brains of young people.

 

[Big Dog]

I know plenty of wealthy that use obscene amounts of energy. But most aren't that far off from the poor.

So the poor you know also use obscene amounts of energy? (definitely not following your logic)

But as to the first clause, there is no reason that Utilities should not have a new rate tier for Obscene use. If the folks in Beverly Hills want to keep their massive pools at 80 degrees all year, they pay a huge rate premium to do so. (or get solar)

 

[charlesj]

...
Second, if their energy is to be sold back to the grid, it must only be at prices similar to the cost of generation, not at the retail rates as currently configured.
...

I would love to be paid retail for my excess generation, but I am lucky if I get wholesale.

Yes, they do a bookkeeping calculation trick until it is time to pay for at overgeneration.

 

[sunwarriors]

Such ideas angers me beyond believe.
I came here 30 years ago running away from a mayhem created by socialism.
Here we go again.

Someone please build a wall and seal off the state of California so that their ideas aren't tainting already tainted brains of young people.

It's always sad to see that the big 3 IOUs is always the plan touted or shared in media/news making it seem like that's the only option. There are multiple proposals with some charging like $5-$10/month tops.

One of those should be adopted instead of the IOU one.

 

[DP26]

It's always sad to see that the big 3 IOUs is always the plan touted or shared in media/news making it seem like that's the only option. There are multiple proposals with some charging like $5-$10/month tops.

One of those should be adopted instead of the IOU one.

While it has been a bit since I read the law, I think the access fee has to be designed to cover all costs other than the kWh. If correct, it is not going to be 10 a month no matter who designs the plan.

 

[tangible1]

I would love to be paid retail for my excess generation, but I am lucky if I get wholesale.

Yes, they do a bookkeeping calculation trick until it is time to pay for at overgeneration.

generation costs are 8-10 cents max. You're getting better than that.

 

[DP26]

generation costs are 8-10 cents max. You're getting better than that.

if that “is” the accurate gen cost, let it sink in, and one can see why the new proposals have a seemingly high access fee and 30%+ less kWh cost.

Also makes the case for those who say Nem less than 3 was unfairly profiting home Solar users, and by extension, home Solar installers.

 

[tivoboy]

if that “is” the accurate gen cost, let it sink in, and one can see why the new proposals have a seemingly high access fee and 30%+ less kWh cost.

Also makes the case for those who say Nem less than 3 was unfairly profiting home Solar users, and by extension, home Solar installers.

Generation costs for providers, like PG&E are closer to 15 cents. At least that is what they report on the billing and to the state, as a generation credit since I get my E provided by a renewable third party - which now charges ~ 13.4 cents… it was about 6 cents a couple years ago. My question for THEM would be, why is the 100% renewable generation cost now 100% higher today, but that is a different story.

 

[DP26]

Looking at one source, I see from about .13 to .142 ish. (PGE)