diy solar

diy solar

WTH is this new Cali BS? Income Based Rate Increase??? I don't understand.... someone look at this PLZ

Hedges said:
While I hate the idea, it is true that underground aquifer supplies many properties.
When your neighbor drills a deep ag well, he drops the water table below your well.

Of course the solution is to give the government money. :rolleyes:
None of which will be distributed to the impacted neighbors.
Click to expand...
So..put a meter on the folks sucking water out of the aquifer that are running a business like AG or the fracking company etc. Asking average Joe who just uses enough to drink, take a bath and water his garden and chickens is tyranny. We're talking about the same people who want us to have QR codes and ESG scores to determine our life style and freedoms.
 
Rocksnsalt said:
No one seems to have noticed this hit the news the day after Nem 3.0 took effect here in CA.
Coincidence?
Click to expand...
Coincidence not ?
I’m still trying to wrap my head around Nem 3.0. Not really going encourage people to add Solar and not going to encourage people to maintain their existing systems. Only Solar/battery systems without export seems logical if one can get past the sticker shock. And if the state/utilities think that people are going to let them use their power wall or EV as an available energy source, further reducing the life of that source without fair monitory compensation, they got another thing coming. This income based fixed rate doesn’t seem to make sense (not enough compared to what people are paying now). If it’s fixed why would anyone be concerned about usage? I betcha it ends up as another surcharge in addition to usage and this is just a way to get the foot in the door. Typical California initiative bait and switch(fine print, tricky wording, buried deep).
 
Last edited:
this is an attempt to get moderate and well off people to pay more. Not to help lower income as they already can get up to a 35 % discount on their elec bill. the program CARE offer 30-35 % discount to low income and the program FERA allows more moderate income to get an 18% discount.

If this was just to help them, they could just raise the discount

make no mistake. this is to punish the middle and upper class, because they are BAD
 
Texican said:
this is an attempt to get moderate and well off people to pay more. Not to help lower income as they already can get up to a 35 % discount on their elec bill. the program CARE offer 30-35 % discount to low income and the program FERA allows more moderate income to get an 18% discount.
Click to expand...

Curious. What is the source of the funding for those discounts? Are these discounts given out of the goodness of PG&E's heart?
 
sunshine_eggo said:
Curious. What is the source of the funding for those discounts? Are these discounts given out of the goodness of PG&E's heart?
Click to expand...
from CA.gov

CARE is funded through a rate surcharge paid by all other utility customers.
 
the new plan is more wealth redistribution on top of the existing wealth redistribution
 
sunshine_eggo said:
Exactly. Those discounts are paid by people who can afford to pay more. Why are you slamming one thing while promoting the exact same thing?
Click to expand...
Im not. just pointing out that the low income folks already have help.
I think income should not be relevent to the price of anything.
 
sunshine_eggo said:
Exactly. Those discounts are paid by people who can afford to pay more. Why are you slamming one thing while promoting the exact same thing?
Click to expand...


Difference is, instead of a surcharge on everyone's bill perhaps as part of the per kWh rate, this new one is a tiered income tax.
Since when should utility rates be a graduated income tax?

And it appears this is an income tax to be multiplied by the number of properties/electric accounts a person has.
There is already property tax per property.
 
sunshine_eggo said:
From folks who can afford to pay more.

So, those that can't afford their electric bill shouldn't get help. Why should they have to pay less only because they can't afford it?
Click to expand...

Generally, people who earn less are expected to buy less.
In practice, people usually decide what to spend their money on. We may not approve of their decisions, but it is freedom. For instance, if someone decides to buy expensive sneakers but can't afford good food.

Ultimately, we could make sure everyone has enough of what they need, regardless of income.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
 
Hedges said:
Generally, people who earn less are expected to buy less.
In practice, people usually decide what to spend their money on. We may not approve of their decisions, but it is freedom. For instance, if someone decides to buy expensive sneakers but can't afford good food.

Ultimately, we could make sure everyone has enough of what they need, regardless of income.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Click to expand...
So socialism? With that in mind what happens with the border wide open and millions and millions of illegals pouring across; is America and the west suppose to be the Global welfare machine? You should see what this has done to Texas and our property taxes!
 
Last edited:
Mithril said:
then it's time to nationalize the infrastructure.
Click to expand...
FERC does play a role in standards for regional grids. I am not sure about Nationalization? The only example is TVA or some provincial systems in Canada and I have not looked at them enough to know what the benefits are. I do know that the Municipal Utilities in California do have lower rates than the Investor Owned Utilities in California and they are not regulated by CPUC so maybe the form of "regulation" needs to be analyzed. Deregulation in California did have it's issues with Enron in early 2000s but I have a CCA which gives me better rates for the generation portion of the bill. It is the distribution part that is in question and what this fee is all about.
 
Ampster said:
FERC does play a role in standards for regional grids. I am not sure about Nationalization? The only example is TVA or some provincial systems in Canada and I have not looked at them enough to know what the benefits are. I do know that the Municipal Utilities in California do have lower rates than the Investor Owned Utilities in California and they are not regulated by CPUC so maybe the form of "regulation" needs to be analyzed. Deregulation in California did have it's issues with Enron in early 2000s but I have a CCA which gives me better rates for the generation portion of the bill. It is the distribution part that is in question and what this fee is all about.
Click to expand...
Sure, perhaps it would be more accurate to say city/county/state owned, and maybe certain aspects federal (cross state interconnects and what not)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top