opinion of CA's new payment scheme for electricity

[dead0man]

link-CNET

In California, how much you pay for electricity will soon be tied to how much you earn: A state law passed last summer requires the California Public Utilities Commission, or CPUC, to approve a pricing structure that incorporates a flat fee with a sliding scale based on income.

Currently, Californians pay for the energy they use and the cost of upgrading the grid, settling lawsuits related to wildfires and providing assistance to low-income customers is built into the per-kilowatt-hour price.

Under the new system, however, funds for these programs would come from "income-graduated fixed charges."

Proponents say the change is needed because, as energy prices continue to increase in the state, poorer households are seeing a bigger chunk of their paychecks going toward repairing California's aged energy infrastructure.

It's an unprecedented move: In an April blog post, energy economist Ahmad Faruqui said more than 170 investor-owned utilities nationwide incorporate a fixed rate -- the median being $10 and the highest $40.

None has an income-based component.

Legislators left exactly what this new system would look like -- and how customers' income would be verified -- up to the CPUC, which put the call out for proposals.

<snip>

But Faruqui warned the plan would punish customers who use less electricity, especially higher earners.

"They would be penalized for using less energy, which is the opposite of the state's goal to use energy efficiently," he wrote. According to Faruqui's calculations, a household in the highest bracket now paying $50 a month would see their bill soar 140%.

"Millions of customers fall in this category," he added. "Many spent thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars, to make their house energy efficient and to supply it with self-generated solar energy. Their investment will be rendered wasted."

if you use little electricity from the grid because you are efficient or because you invested money into creating your own electricity, you're getting screwed.  If you use a lot of electricity, you'll love this especially if the govt doesn't think you make very much money.

Speaking of which, it's kind of funny that they still don't know how they are going to let the electric companies know how much money their customers make.



It seems to me that the only people who would be for this would be Californians that use a lot of electricity and dumb people who think the number one thing in life is "stickin' it to da man"....so this should do really well here

[Yeahsayyeah]

It seems to basically be a tax for infrastructure improvment.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Even someone low income could be hurt if they don't use much electricity. Part of this is renters in efficient urban apartments subsidizing large suburban homeowners. Why should a studio in an apartment building potentially have a higher fee than a mansion in the suburbs or a rural area? And if you're rich and use tons of electricity, this is great for you.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     California really is innovative; the state is hard at work inventing new ways to continue declining

[jojoju1998]

I have Roseville Electric so….


Rates have been cheaper for years here where I live.


Municipally owned electricity is great.

[Lief 🗽]

This appears to be totally insane progressive nonsense that sounds social justice-y but will in practice primarily benefit wealthy home owners. So about par for the course from California!

[Koharu]

I'd be more for a base "user fee" that considered income, and then still charge per-kilowatt as currently. So, like, $5/month for lower income folks, with per-kilowatt-hour charges on top of that, and and like, $20/month for higher income folks, with per-kilowatt-hour charges on top of that. Totally imaginary numbers here as an illustration. But if people aren't charged for usage, they're going to just use however much they want.

Or maybe adjust the per-kilowatt amount based on income. 10c per kwh for low-income, 12c per kwh for the tier above, up to 18c per kwh for the highest earners, or whatever amounts would make sense.

But a flat fee, regardless of usage? That's ridiculous and asking for people to stop caring about being efficient. I'm on board with what the Sierra Club said in the article.

[Agonized-Statism]

Even someone low income could be hurt if they don't use much electricity. Part of this is renters in efficient urban apartments subsidizing large suburban homeowners. Why should a studio in an apartment building potentially have a higher fee than a mansion in the suburbs or a rural area? And if you're rich and use tons of electricity, this is great for you.

Exactly. And they wonder why they're hemorrhaging taxpayers. I miss Texas (but not the Texan grid, lol).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'd be more for a base "user fee" that considered income, and then still charge per-kilowatt as currently. So, like, $5/month for lower income folks, with per-kilowatt-hour charges on top of that, and and like, $20/month for higher income folks, with per-kilowatt-hour charges on top of that. Totally imaginary numbers here as an illustration. But if people aren't charged for usage, they're going to just use however much they want.

Or maybe adjust the per-kilowatt amount based on income. 10c per kwh for low-income, 12c per kwh for the tier above, up to 18c per kwh for the highest earners, or whatever amounts would make sense.

But a flat fee, regardless of usage? That's ridiculous and asking for people to stop caring about being efficient. I'm on board with what the Sierra Club said in the article.

It still charges for usage as well. A lot of people might have missed that and don't really how much it will be increasing a lot of people's bills.

[PSOL]

The California Democratic party really is the vanguard for the devils inhabiting Marin county. They can continue this bull•••• so long with the rest of the country feeding the tech and real estate bubbles, but soon it’s gonna pop wide open.