The live in will own a smaller share for several reasons. With appreciation averaging 1600 a month over 30 years, and little buildable land in our city, they both benefit greatly.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion
- Thread starter jjrandorin
- Start date
Lol so when you said your kid was locked in your desirable-location-home ... you made that sound like a bad thing. If you think folks are their own worst enemy; imagine what people feel like that cannot afford a home in the area.
But back on the NEM topic, even if they could afford a home and some Tesla's ... the IOUs still want their fair share. Sucks.
The state should change its motto from "I have found it" to be "great place to live ... if your parents could have afforded it for you and you're under NEM 2.0".
Do folks have more articles about groups fighting this new $180k (and other income pricing) income proposal? This seems even worst than the $8 fee since someone can use zero energy or incredibly little and you will still have a high monthly bill. This definitely hurts solar customers who can try to net zero their bills.
It also doesn't seem to impact as much, say, a foreign owner with no US reported income or a very wealthy asset rich person who has low taxable income (or can self time/control income every other year if needed).
Can folks on NEM2.0 opt out of this type of proposal and are only folks on NEM3.0 or later supposed to be forced on this?
I didn't like what I saw so far. It looks more like the endless subscription/membership/recurring pricing we see every industry likes to do nowadays.
It also doesn't seem to impact as much, say, a foreign owner with no US reported income or a very wealthy asset rich person who has low taxable income (or can self time/control income every other year if needed).
Can folks on NEM2.0 opt out of this type of proposal and are only folks on NEM3.0 or later supposed to be forced on this?
I didn't like what I saw so far. It looks more like the endless subscription/membership/recurring pricing we see every industry likes to do nowadays.
Looking at some news reports, looks like they will get a high monthly fee right away and simply try to get folks to pay near the EXACT same bill $$ amount (maybe a few bucks less), then I think what will happen is rates will simply just go float back up to the old levels with no way to stop it. I really hope the CPUC (low chance) will stop this move. And, you're expecting the state to securely share income data with the IOUs now.
If anything, ding everyone with the same fixed fee. Low income/CAREs people should just have the state apply a tax or something to anyone else, etc to cover them...Don't give the utilities more say/power to dictate things or take them all to BK and restructure them to be local municipal services.
High energy/grid users should simply pay more, not because someone simply has a high income. For CA, those income rates would mean everyone is going to be paying more probably in the end/a couple years down the line and you have no way to stop it due to the extremely high monthly fee.
This proposal just looks more like the same class warfare that the IOU seems to only know how to wage.
If anything, ding everyone with the same fixed fee. Low income/CAREs people should just have the state apply a tax or something to anyone else, etc to cover them...Don't give the utilities more say/power to dictate things or take them all to BK and restructure them to be local municipal services.
High energy/grid users should simply pay more, not because someone simply has a high income. For CA, those income rates would mean everyone is going to be paying more probably in the end/a couple years down the line and you have no way to stop it due to the extremely high monthly fee.
This proposal just looks more like the same class warfare that the IOU seems to only know how to wage.
skepticcyclist
Member
This flat rate income based proposal will be $85/month for those of us with SCE. With taxes that will come to over $100/month. If this ends up being the case I will end up adding more panels with another battery and go completely off grid.
Off grid certainly seems to be getting more appealing...
I still don't know how to cut ties from Natural Gas... retrofitting a house to be all electric is rough. Can't even do mini-splits due to HOA rules.
skepticcyclist
Member
I would only cut ties with my electric provider only. I would still have to keep gas. All my appliances are gas. I would have to pay tens of thousands more to add 240v outlets (my house has none), upgrade the main panel for these additional breakers, and over double my existing solar panels (for which I do not have roof space) and triple my existing batteries. The costs would just not even be worth it.
Aside from the basic shock about this proposal, who is going to trust PG&E with their income information? How would they verify it? You now have to file your 1040 with PG&E as well as the state? Maybe give them access to all your credit bureau info into order to get power? Will be fun to see this litigated if it gets traction with the CPUC.
RKCRLR
Active Member
They'll probably just charge you at the highest income rate until you prove otherwise. They'll be fine with you not wanting to prove it...
I think I saw they will just use the CA FTB info (CA Franchise tax board) which already has all your tax info. Still, I wouldn't be surprised with how tech is if they leaked your whole return to the IOU.
Electrph
Member
if you find a way in future to cut ties with SCE let us know .. I will be right behind you
skepticcyclist
Member
Yeah. More wishful thinking on my part. My electricity and gas are separate companies. I can legally choose to not have gas and cancel SoCal gas without any legal issues. But I cannot choose to not have electricity. I will not be able to call SCE and cancel my electricity while still remaining as a resident in the house.if you find a way in future to cut ties with SCE let us know .. I will be right behind you
Off grid homes are legal in CA but they have to meet certain criteria. Virtually no home in a suburb or urban area will meet those criteria. Simply not paying your bill will get your power shut off but also build up fines and penalties. Calling and canceling service will eventually result in action taken against you if you stay at the residence while not connected to the grid.
It's hard to find the details of why off grid residential is not allowed, but this older article helped
jgleigh
Member
Oh those poor utilities...how will they ever survive?
Hopefully, before 2024 when this is in (if it's in), folks have a pathway to leave the grid if they choose to. When I got PTOed, there was a blurb that I can ask to leave the grid in the welcome email, but don't know how realistic that is.
That and if V2H is working, getting a large EV can probably solve any ESS issues. That and I'd probably buy a huge generator which would only be used for long cloudy days, hopefully, it won't need to be on long to recharge the batteries.
That and if V2H is working, getting a large EV can probably solve any ESS issues. That and I'd probably buy a huge generator which would only be used for long cloudy days, hopefully, it won't need to be on long to recharge the batteries.
Like govt or any other business, quasi govt utilities are never going to need less $. Employees need raises, retirement, etc. So changing how it gets to their nut is politics. Trending to a service charge is nothing new. Our local utilities have done so, such as all must have garbage service, and water bills having a base fee (came on after they went negative budget due to conservation).
We should be happy the kWh will be LESS by a significant amount. If you want to lower your service charge, there are legal ways to do so; which may or may not save you money elsewhere in your financial life.
What is bad, to me, is the neuter of Solar since there will be a monthly fee, and less kWh cost to recover the Solar cost. If one believes Solar should be self serving, this change is less bad. If one believes home Solar is to make money by export, that is gone, and many will say good riddance (since the home export has been insulated from distribution costs and the like).
Tough to sell Solar now, but many who buy will be shocked if they don’t break even befor end of life for their install. I cannot recommend Solar until the rate structure is online as the current docs make Solar a loser for many/most.
We should be happy the kWh will be LESS by a significant amount. If you want to lower your service charge, there are legal ways to do so; which may or may not save you money elsewhere in your financial life.
What is bad, to me, is the neuter of Solar since there will be a monthly fee, and less kWh cost to recover the Solar cost. If one believes Solar should be self serving, this change is less bad. If one believes home Solar is to make money by export, that is gone, and many will say good riddance (since the home export has been insulated from distribution costs and the like).
Tough to sell Solar now, but many who buy will be shocked if they don’t break even befor end of life for their install. I cannot recommend Solar until the rate structure is online as the current docs make Solar a loser for many/most.
Not knowing where you are in the south land, this is a FWIW:
While I am also considering exiting the grid, you may subject to clean air rules regarding generators, and when they can be used; we may be as well.
All the best,
BG
While the author opines that it isn't permissible, as far as I could tell, the quoted sections don't, in my limited reading, actually say "thou shall not..."
What did I miss, or misread?
Similar threads
- Locked
