California Utilities Plan All Out War On Solar, Please Read And Help

[wwu123]

Here we go "hot off the press" this morning! AB1999.

Bill Text - AB-1999 Electricity: fixed charges.

(e) For purposes of this section and Section 739.1, the commission may, beginning January 1, 2015, authorize fixed charges that do not exceed ten dollars ($10) per residential customer account per month for customers not enrolled in the CARE program and five dollars ($5) per residential customer account per month for customers enrolled in the CARE program. Beginning January 1, 2016, the maximum allowable fixed charge may be adjusted by no more than the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the prior calendar year. This subdivision applies to any default rate schedule, at least one optional tiered rate schedule, and at least one optional time-variant rate schedule.

I have a fairly positive feeling about this bill - for one thing, there are 18 Assembly authors or co-authors of this bill. And that's just the Democrats. I'm sure all the 19 Republican's would vote for this, even if they wouldn't be authors (or weren't invited to be), unless this gets ensnarled as a bargaining chip for some other political issue.

I'm not an expert on our state politics, but there are only 80 Assembly members, so that's almost a majority right off the bat....

 

[Big Dog]

hopefully, a little sanity on the way.

Electric bill based on income? Forget it, California lawmakers of both parties agree

The push to maker higher-income Californians pay higher fixed charges for electricity has sparked class warfare — and a confounding round of ducking, glancing, blaming and finger-pointing.

www.mercurynews.com

 

[sunwarriors]

Pretty sad seeing stuff like this, even though I'm not the "wealthiest households" and got solar late:
"...We can — and must — ensure the wealthiest households pay their fair share.”


Bottom line is in life, low income folks ALWAYS pays a larger share for everything simply due to the fact that they have less $$. Zuck made $29 billion today on paper due to META jumping up mad. A $10 burger is a smaller share of his $$ than mine and everyone else's here (minus Elon).

I think those proposals tying monthly fees to service size (100A, 200A, 400A, etc...) makes more sense (big/rich people homes will have a higher service fee) vs. pure income. Some single guy making bank in an apt he never uses due to work/travel pays more than a household of ten in a shack.

This income fee for even very poor people would've hit very hard (I think it was $30/month in SDG&E). I just don't think income should be based on it at all. If they want to use income, maybe just add a pure income tax which will have to be passed by the voters. There are a lot of poor people, just have the people vote it in if they really want to go after the wealthy.

Maybe like solar panels/storage to avoid the IOUs, rich people will just leave the state to avoid paying if they tax one too much.

... or, better yet, stop guaranteeing utility profits and fix the actual problem.

 

[sorka]

Pretty sad seeing stuff like this, even though I'm not the "wealthiest households" and got solar late:
"...We can — and must — ensure the wealthiest households pay their fair share.”


Bottom line is in life, low income folks ALWAYS pays a larger share for everything simply due to the fact that they have less $$. Zuck made $29 billion today on paper due to META jumping up mad. A $10 burger is a smaller share of his $$ than mine and everyone else's here (minus Elon).

I think those proposals tying monthly fees to service size (100A, 200A, 400A, etc...) makes more sense (big/rich people homes will have a higher service fee) vs. pure income. Some single guy making bank in an apt he never uses due to work/travel pays more than a household of ten in a shack.

This income fee for even very poor people would've hit very hard (I think it was $30/month in SDG&E). I just don't think income should be based on it at all. If they want to use income, maybe just add a pure income tax which will have to be passed by the voters. There are a lot of poor people, just have the people vote it in if they really want to go after the wealthy.

Maybe like solar panels/storage to avoid the IOUs, rich people will just leave the state to avoid paying if they tax one too much.

... or, better yet, stop guaranteeing utility profits and fix the actual problem.

Having any fixed amount that you can't get out of no matter how you modify your behavior is antithetical to conservation and California's climate goals. It would encourage using more, not less.

Although I detest the idea of this regressive tax, I'd be less opposed to having income based rates on usage. i.e. make kwh more expensive for rich people. We already have a version of this with CARE. Of course if I'm going to be subjected to higher per kwh charges for what I actually use from the grid, I'd better get that same amount credited back when I export to the grid too. Those rich people who decide NOT to get solar can pay the extra cost, or they can conserve more, or do both.

For NEM 3.0 customer, they'll have to purchase more solar and more storage, or conserve more to get out of paying the extra per kwh charge. This approach would encourage adoption of solar, home storage, and conservation. High fixed rate charges that you can't get out of no matte what you do discourage solar and encourage wasteful usage.

Lastly, make no mistake, the $5 a month that low income families would save under AB205 will quickly be outpaced by rate increases that are accelerating with no end in sight. AB205 is just a money grabbing ploy that won't save anyone and in the end everyone will be paying more. By making rates slightly lower to offset the new fixed charge, it will just provide and excuse for the IOUs to keep demanding rate increases by comparing the now lower rates to previous rates and say "the rate increase we're asking for is only 5% more than it was last year" when in fact, it's 50% more once you factor back in the new fixed income charge.

 

[wwu123]

hopefully, a little sanity on the way.

Electric bill based on income? Forget it, California lawmakers of both parties agree

The push to maker higher-income Californians pay higher fixed charges for electricity has sparked class warfare — and a confounding round of ducking, glancing, blaming and finger-pointing.

www.mercurynews.com

While I applaud the overall message of the article, the introductory quote by State Senator Wiener is absolutely cringeworthy compared to the State Assemblymember's press intro to the bill a few days ago. Basically the Assembly members were saying "hey, we were snookered into this by something Newsom snuck into an unrelated vote at the very last minute, such that no one could actually read this before the vote, so let's undo it". While Wiener's quote pretty much says, "hey CPUC, can you not do your job, by rejecting this thing that we, the Senators and Assembly voted into law, instructing you to do this unfair thing"....

 

[Big Dog]

Having any fixed amount that you can't get out of no matter how you modify your behavior is antithetical to conservation and California's climate goals. It would encourage using more, not less.

Although I detest the idea of this regressive tax, I'd be less opposed to having income based rates on usage. i.e. make kwh more expensive for rich people. We already have a version of this with CARE. Of course if I'm going to be subjected to higher per kwh charges for what I actually use from the grid, I'd better get that same amount credited back when I export to the grid too. Those rich people who decide NOT to get solar can pay the extra cost, or they can conserve more, or do both.

For NEM 3.0 customer, they'll have to purchase more solar and more storage, or conserve more to get out of paying the extra per kwh charge. This approach would encourage adoption of solar, home storage, and conservation. High fixed rate charges that you can't get out of no matte what you do discourage solar and encourage wasteful usage.

Lastly, make no mistake, the $5 a month that low income families would save under AB205 will quickly be outpaced by rate increases that are accelerating with no end in sight. AB205 is just a money grabbing ploy that won't save anyone and in the end everyone will be paying more. By making rates slightly lower to offset the new fixed charge, it will just provide and excuse for the IOUs to keep demanding rate increases by comparing the now lower rates to previous rates and say "the rate increase we're asking for is only 5% more than it was last year" when in fact, it's 50% more once you factor back in the new fixed income charge.

If I had to guess, the intent was that over time, the low income folks woudl be held harmless, i.e., as everyone's rates increased, the subsidy for the low income woudl increase.

 

[sorka]

If I had to guess, the intent was that over time, the low income folks woudl be held harmless, i.e., as everyone's rates increased, the subsidy for the low income woudl increase.

That's not how AB205 was written.

 

[dfwatt]

I think the "...whole depends on where you are..." (in FL, CA, etc) is already the problem. Just because you state you know so and so went off grid doesn't do anything for anyone else if it doesn't apply to them. This is why I still have yet to find anyone or posts of anyone who has done this in more metro/suburb areas to just walk up and tell the IOU to FU from following regular threads.

Until it's a simple thing to cut them out and it's even documented, it's still a unicorn in my book for the majority of people.

Certainly in Florida it is extremely hard where we live in Charlotte County to get off grid. I do not believe that within our County you can get an occupancy permit without a grid connection. There may be counties in Florida where this is not true particularly in an area that's very lightly populated. But I don't think that changes the general principle that the utilities have people where they want them namely they are legally required to do business with the monopoly. Their core strategy has been to defeat solar with a progressive escalation of basic connection charges. The whole point of jacking up a connection charge and fabricating all the necessary data to support the idea that transmission costs are anywhere from 60 to 90% of the utilities costs is to make sure that the connection charge stays as high as possible and this can actually make solar lose any reasonable payback period. Once the financial incentive is removed by the punitive connection charge, the Monopoly of course is secured indefinitely. It's been a very successful strategy because now people down here are talking about how they're really not going to save very much money if they're paying 30 to 50 bucks a month just to be connected.

They can't of course bulk the connection charge up too much because then you get into a situation where people are not paying commensurate with their use so the utilities know that there's a limit to how far they can push this strategy but with the FUDGates wide open and the dissemination of the meme that solar is elitist and also that it's dirty anyway because it's got a large carbon footprint in its manufacturer you can try to discredit and disinform as much as possible. Unclear whether it will stop or merely slow the adoption. I do think that the disruption is so baked into the cost differential between even the smallest possible solar system and the larger still largely fossil fuel based investor owned utilities that it will only slow it. But of course in our heavily Republican county, people are brainwashed anyway most especially the absolutely staggering idea that investor owned utilities are free market capitalism, so it's not a big lift to get somebody to endorse nonsense promoted by utilities and fossil fuel interests.

 

[nwdiver]

Certainly in Florida it is extremely hard where we live in Charlotte County to get off grid.

Sure seems like there would be a 4th Amendment issue there. Is the utility going to narc you out to the AHJ that you went off-grid? How would the county know you're 'off-grid'? How and where would there be any consequences to getting your electric service disconnected?

 

[winfield100]

Sure seems like there would be a 4th Amendment issue there. Is the utility going to narc you out to the AHJ that you went off-grid? How would the county know you're 'off-grid'? How and where would there be any consequences to getting your electric service disconnected?

yes. you would get 'narc'd out. losing occupancy permit

my minimum bill was $21.69, since increased.

 

[dfwatt]

Sure seems like there would be a 4th Amendment issue there. Is the utility going to narc you out to the AHJ that you went off-grid? How would the county know you're 'off-grid'? How and where would there be any consequences to getting your electric service disconnected?

Because being disconnected for non-payment would not suspend your bill, either for any kilowatts used or the minimum connection charge. You'd simply accumulate the minimum connection charge every month plus whatever outstanding balance there was for usage plus late fees. Until you paid it and then eventually the utility would take you to court and in the resulting small claims action you would be court ordered to square up the balance or go to jail. People have actually already tried this. Your question might make someone think that you don't really believe the law is what it is down here. Do you have any basis for that? Other than just being incredulous that counties might operate that way? Just to clarify the Fourth Amendment provides you with no cover in relationship to collection efforts around any defaulted financial obligations. That's not considered unreasonable search and seizure.

What needs to happen is a large class action suit around the mandate to be connected to the grit. But that's a whole different set of issues. And without class action and without precedent, going into small claims court to claim those things to try to get out of a connection charge would get you Bupkis

 

[nwdiver]

Because being disconnected for non-payment would not suspend your bill, either for any kilowatts used or the minimum connection charge.

.... so if you ask to have your electric service disconnected they simply say 'no'?

 

[winfield100]

.... so if you ask to have your electric service disconnected they simply say 'no'?

may I recommend a cautionary tale for a potential maze one may tread at their bodily and financial peril
(there are a number of iterations of this tale)

How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears

Seriously, this happened. You should absolutely read about it.

www.vox.com

 

[nwdiver]

may I recommend a cautionary tale for a potential maze one may tread at their bodily and financial peril
(there are a number of iterations of this tale)

How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears

Seriously, this happened. You should absolutely read about it.

www.vox.com

.... so you CAN have your grid service disconnected but you need to watch out for bears?

 

[Big Dog]

That's not how AB205 was written.

actually, I think it was: "...income-graduated basis … such that a low-income ratepayer would realize lower average monthly bills without making any changes in usage.”

That's how they roll in Sacto.

 

[gene]

This from Dave Rosenfeld of Solar Rights Alliance (who may be deserved of a bit of your financial support):

"

AB 1999 is a great start, but one important amendment that is needed is to ensure it applies to "all residential rate schedules". The bill currently applies to just the "default rate schedule". This is a loophole that leaves vulnerable all the NEM3 customers who are required to be on a special rate schedule (that is not the default). That includes everyone who buys a new home required to have solar. Down the road, the CPUC could also make CCA customers, EV drivers, and other customer classes vulnerable to mandatory special rate schedules exempt from AB 1999. Amending AB 1999 to apply to "all rate schedules" prevents the CPUC from any sort of end-run around the intent of the law. To be clear, this loophole was not intentional by the authors - it's a by-product of reverting back to the law pre-AB 205. Back then, we didn't know what the CPUC was capable of. NEM3 has given us a taste of the degree to which the CPUC will work to suppress rooftop solar. With that knowledge, we should ensure AB 1999 gives them no room for further damage.

"

 

[gene]

Update on state legislature bills to get rooftop solar growing again

If you live in or near Sacramento and can attend any of these meetings, let Cailey know. [email protected]
Link for information, links to bills and possible talking points

These bills will be heard at State Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications. Committee Hearing Date: 04/16/24
SB-938 Electrical and gas corporations: rate recovery: political activities and advertising. Would prohibit private utilities from lobbying with ratepayer funds.

These bills will be heard at the State Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications. Committee Hearing Date: 04/22/24
SB-1374 Net energy metering: (Becker) would restore the right of renters, farmers, and schools to make and consume their own solar energy, a right that the state took away from these folks last year.
SB 1305 Electricity: virtual power plant procurement.(Stern) would require utilities to treat their customers with both solar and batteries as a “Virtual Power Plant”, and purchase the electricity from them in the same way they would a solar farm in the desert. This has the potential to reduce the need for giant solar farms and their expensive long-distance power lines. This could save ratepayers as much as $120 billion over the next thirty years.

For more information on other bills being heard at the meeting, here's the link

Bills heard at Assembly Energy, Utilities and Communications
Hearing date: 04/17/24
AB-2619 Net energy metering. (Connolly) would ban solar taxes and require the CPUC to revise their net metering decision to align with the state’s actual clean energy goals.
AB1999 might be heard on April 17th Assembly Energy, Utilities and Communications. Stay tuned
AB2054 Passed in Assembly Energy, Utilities and Communications on 04/01/24. pass as amended and re-refer to Committee on Appropriations

Bill location but no hearing date
AB 2256 (Friedman) would require the CPUC to include all the benefits of rooftop solar when deciding how much credit solar users get. Passed to Assembly Energy, Utilities and Communications. Not scheduled for a hearing
AB 3118 (Wallis) would make solar the “official state energy” of California, the same way the poppy is our state flower. Assembly Energy, Utilities and Communications. Not scheduled for a hearing

There have been many articles on How did regulators decide on the fixed charge amount?
The $24.15 fee was benchmarked to the fixed infrastructure charge currently used by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). So it seems there was once again no analysis by the CPUC and just pulled the amount out of thin air, thinking this will fly. Many of the articles published online and news outlets seem to think this is fine. But it's not
I have sent out tweets directly to many news outlets who have missed the point and have said:
Even at $24 per month, the #UtilityTax would increase bills for millions of working people.
The article failed to say AB 1999 caps the utility tax back at $10/month, allowing it to increase at the inflation rate. Rates never go down, only up

 

[OldPro]

Waiting for the results of how bad we current solar panel owners will get screwed.

 

[Ed Hart]

Like the rest of you, I have made big investments in solar, batteries and Teslas....exactly as the State of California asked me to do. Also like you, I am now labeled as a horrible, almost racist person for having made these investments. So, I am very interested in what this state does next.
For those who have invested similarly to me in Tesla equipment, don't miss that the "Charge on Solar" capability of your system aims to minimize the amount of my solar power that "round-trips", meaning I send it to the utility during the day and buy it back at night. There is a penalty for that. So, I recommend that those who can should give it a try.