• Have you tried out dark mode?! Scroll to the bottom of any page to find a sun or moon icon to turn dark mode on or off!

diy solar

diy solar

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

farmhand

farmhand

New Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2022
Messages
221
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/california-power-companies-roll-out-fixed-rate-bill-proposal/

So if I'm understanding this right; everyone will pay $0.33 per KWH (which is INSANE compared to Ohio right now), but then everyone will have a 2nd charge based on household income? It's that a fine?

Let's not forget how screwed PG&E grid-tiers are with the buy-back going from $0.25kwh down to $0.06kwh for residential accounts. That system that was cover pay for itself in 20years is now going to take 80...

no wonder so many left that hellhole
 
If true, this would be an alternative to the photon tax that was (at least temporarily) dropped.

Only rich people put in PV, and then after making the massive investment they no longer pay much of an electric bill.
"Those with incomes above $180,000 would pay $85 a month in Edison territory, $128 a month in SDG&E territory and $92 a month in PG&E territory."
Sounds like a plan to make "rich" people pay their "fair" share.

"Fixed rate"? Surely this does not replace price per kWh? Because if it does, electric heat, EV, and bitcoin mining (also grow houses) will become very popular.
 
Hedges said:
If true, this would be an alternative to the photon tax that was (at least temporarily) dropped.

Only rich people put in PV, and then after making the massive investment they no longer pay much of an electric bill.
"Those with incomes above $180,000 would pay $85 a month in Edison territory, $128 a month in SDG&E territory and $92 a month in PG&E territory."
Sounds like a plan to make "rich" people pay their "fair" share.

"Fixed rate"? Surely this does not replace price per kWh? Because if it does, electric heat, EV, and bitcoin mining (also grow houses) will become very popular.
Click to expand...
I think it is a fixed rate increase on top of the already $0.33kwh
 
I'm in SCE-land. Yes, this snuck up on me this week with a phone popup. AB205 is the enabling legislation...signed by pretty boy (and sadly for those who don't know him, me thinks our next prez) last fall. Mandates "at least" 3 income ranges. We will get smacked with at least the middle charge. Funny, I've been 2.0 since 2017 and because prior TOU only squeezed a little more than 4 years on as-was rate structure (10 pm - 8 am least expensive, now 8 am - 5 pm least expensive). To obtain $0 electric bill for the year (in first four years) I needed to generate about 85% of consumption...now more like 120% of consumption (earnestly went foraging for phantom loads a few months ago and found a few good ones, thankfully). This dumb surcharge will be as much as what my average monthly electric bill was prior to installing PV.

Not a "fixed rate increase". This will just show up as a line item on your bill...and then the consumption part may be similar (with slightly, for now, less $/kWh).

Not sure what percentage of posters here are in one of the 3 investor owned utilities (IOUs) but for those that are a few things come to mind.

In Ca, we need to attach our fed returns to our state tax returns so that's easy-peasy for "them" to get that info. Hopefully there will be the ability to fill in a form once retirement achieved and not have a 1-2 (or more) year lag on that.

I thought Prop 13 required initiative-based (and 2/3 vote?) to get a tax hike through? No way this won't be considered a tax (payment based on income sounds like the very definition of a tax) Hopefully this will get to the courts.

Wondering why only IOUs are required to do this?

What's to keep (in extrapolation) the cost of our gasoline, natural gas, (groceries, movie tickets, etc) to be pegged to our income?

I'm going to keep as much info ingested as possible on my part for now. Allegedly not to be implemented until 2025. For now, I think it would be good to tell all of your friends in and out of California. Attack this on a grass roots level.

This morning I emailed a news link about this to my 90 year old dad (out of state). Retired USMC colonel. Told him the commies were taking over and if he could please arrange for an amphibious landing!
 
Can I divide total income by number of properties owned, so I pay a fair rate per property, and not the inflated "I'm rich" rate multiplied by the number of properties I own? ?

And, does this new "soak the rich" provision still apply if I pull the plug?
 
Hedges said:
Can I divide total income by number of properties owned, so I pay a fair rate per property, and not the inflated "I'm rich" rate multiplied by the number of properties I own? ?

And, does this new "soak the rich" provision still apply if I pull the plug?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure it will be by address...as in Apartment #, street address, etc.
 
This is a proposal by the power companies, not yet approved. Also, it is a corporation trying to get $$$. Not socialism. It is clearly aimed at houses with solar, they are trying to recoup their loss on the original successor tariff.

It needs to go through the same CPUC process as the successor tariff. Let's hope we can do something about it before it is approved.
 
400bird said:
This is a proposal by the power companies, not yet approved. Also, it is a corporation trying to get $$$. Not socialism. It is clearly aimed at houses with solar, they are trying to recoup their loss on the original successor tariff.

It needs to go through the same CPUC process as the successor tariff. Let's hope we can do something about it before it is approved.
Click to expand...
If the corporation is using Government to do it's dirty work and they are working together...it's more on the lines of Fascism.
 
It least we can agree it's not socialism. It feels like either bureaucratic incompetence, plutocracy, or bribery (political donations, etc) to me. I lean towards the first and last before calling it a political system.
 
AB205:

This is state law now.

"Income" mentioned 39 times in the bill (CTL-F). Here's one: "The bill would require the fixed charge to be established on an income-graduated basis, as provided, with no fewer than 3 income thresholds so that low-income ratepayers in each baseline territory would realize a lower average monthly bill without making any changes in usage." This is why each of the IOUs has pitched the rates mentioned in second post above.

"Covid" mentioned 17 times in the bill. "Never let a crisis go to waste"...bet everyone in our country has heard that by now.

Of course it's socialism...as is the graduated income tax. The graduated income tax has been the norm for about 100 years. Believe it or not we were slightly ahead of the Bolsheviks! (I know, we're supposed to be talking about electron flow here but this dern thing has got me riled up!)

Interesting (and quick) read here: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/16th-amendment

"Yet in 1913, due to generous exemptions and deductions, less than 1 percent of the population paid income taxes at the rate of only 1 percent of net income." Wouldn't it be grand if we were only paying that amount? If you start at Plymouth (or Jamestown) we went almost 300 years without a federal income tax!

Again...spread the word to everyone you know...both inside and outside Ca. This is so nutty a concept maybe we can fix it with a proposition...or Ca legislators will be shamed so much that they will rescind the bill.

If not...kiss all of your PV investments away and watch the deleterious effect for new installs...and follow-on income-based pricing for other goods and services. For those who have had children: "If you give a moose a muffin..." (children's book).

BTW, I wrote on my college apps (in 1976) that I wanted to be "part of the solar power industry". Never got to that other than putting in PV but have been a big proponent all of my life. After a career in aerospace, I stumbled into a middle school math position for five years. Always drilled into my 7th and 8th grade students the most important data point you need to know: 1000 W/sq meter!
 
rodrick said:
I just can’t understand why 500,000 people have left that great state over the last 2 to 3 years, cali leads the nation in crime rates, taxes, government regulations, and rolling blackouts what more could you ask for ?
Click to expand...
Those were just missionaries they sent out to convert our quiet, reasonable towns into San Fran 2.0
 
SunnySoCal said:
Interesting (and quick) read here: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/16th-amendment
Click to expand...

"Conservatives, hoping to kill the idea for good, proposed a constitutional amendment enacting such a tax; they believed an amendment would never receive ratification by three-fourths of the states. Much to their surprise, the amendment was ratified by one state legislature after another, and on February 25, 1913, with the certification by Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, the 16th amendment took effect."

That's not the story I was familiar with, which is that federal income tax was implemented so that alcohol could be banned.


"1913 - The 16th Amendment is passed establishing the Federal Income Tax. By 1918, about 60% of federal money comes from the income tax. It replaces tariff duties and excise taxes, including from alcohol as the main source of revenue for the government."
 
Hedges said:
"Conservatives, hoping to kill the idea for good, proposed a constitutional amendment enacting such a tax; they believed an amendment would never receive ratification by three-fourths of the states. Much to their surprise, the amendment was ratified by one state legislature after another, and on February 25, 1913, with the certification by Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, the 16th amendment took effect."

That's not the story I was familiar with, which is that federal income tax was implemented so that alcohol could be banned.


"1913 - The 16th Amendment is passed establishing the Federal Income Tax. By 1918, about 60% of federal money comes from the income tax. It replaces tariff duties and excise taxes, including from alcohol as the main source of revenue for the government."
Click to expand...
Good gosh...time to pour another drink!!!
 
rodrick said:
I just can’t understand why 500,000 people have left that great state over the last 2 to 3 years, cali leads the nation in crime rates, taxes, government regulations, and rolling blackouts what more could you ask for ?
Click to expand...
Don’t forget they are also the 5th largest economy and give all their money to prop up Red states. Don’t believe me just ask them. /sarc
 
I don't think the IOU version was most extreme, rather the Sierra Club one:

"Proposal 2) The Sierra Club is proposing an annual charge: $0 for customers on CARE and FERA, roughly $15-20 annually for moderate income, $45 (PGE), $70 (SCE) and $61 (SDGE) annually for high income, and $94 (PGE), $189 (SCE), and $145 (SDGE) annually for upper-income households."

Was that submitted just so the IOU proposal would seem moderate?
 
California budget deficit for 2023 - $22B
Texas budget surplus for 2023 - $33B

Biden budget deficit for 2023 - who knows. I wouldn't believe anything they publish anyway.

Ugh. Sorry to get political but it's hard to have any conversation nowadays without it creeping in.
 
Hedges said:
I don't think the IOU version was most extreme, rather the Sierra Club one:

"Proposal 2) The Sierra Club is proposing an annual charge: $0 for customers on CARE and FERA, roughly $15-20 annually for moderate income, $45 (PGE), $70 (SCE) and $61 (SDGE) annually for high income, and $94 (PGE), $189 (SCE), and $145 (SDGE) annually for upper-income households."

Was that submitted just so the IOU proposal would seem moderate?
Click to expand...
I thought IOU was monthly and Sierra Club was annual. Looks that way on the post I shared, and this was also clarified down in comments.
 
I saw where cali is now requiring people that had / have residential wells to notify the state so they can come out and put a meter on it.
 
Hedges said:
I don't think the IOU version was most extreme, rather the Sierra Club one:

"Proposal 2) The Sierra Club is proposing an annual charge: $0 for customers on CARE and FERA, roughly $15-20 annually for moderate income, $45 (PGE), $70 (SCE) and $61 (SDGE) annually for high income, and $94 (PGE), $189 (SCE), and $145 (SDGE) annually for upper-income households."

Was that submitted just so the IOU proposal would seem moderate?
Click to expand...
I think the key to making the Sierra Club proposal more moderate is that those numbers are annual. All others were monthly.
The current minimum charge is about $10/month for PGE. This comes out to something on the range of $1.50-$16/month. Compared to the monthly utility proposals that are an order of magnitude higher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

diy solar

diy solar
Back
Top