diy solar

diy solar

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

400bird said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah going from 10-16 is not a huge deal for NEM2 participants. The big deal would be that I think grid participation charge would now apply to all consumers in that income bracket?

I think only retirees with solar or solar owners in low cost of living counties would see a decrease in monthly minimum charge.

The IOU proposal is I think more similar in magnitude to original NEM3 sunshine tax, except it’s no longer based on DC size
 
If you don't want private companies realizing that people who are "net zero" are in fact a net negative on the grid that they begrudgingly maintain in their service area, then it's time to nationalize the infrastructure.

I 1000% support changing (not keeping the same kwh charge and adding a base charge tho) the rate structure to have some level of connection charge, it's more honest to reality. If you have enough over-production you could still get to a $0 electric bill. As more people move to it, it's simply not sustainable to use the grid as a free battery. Being paid even close to the same as consumption for generation is and always has been a subsidy, or bribe if you prefer. When more and more and more people are feeding power all at the same time, and demanding power at other times also all together, how did we all expect this to play out?

Not a SINGLE person who has received said subsidies gets to (mis)use "socialism". This move being pushed for by the companies is profit seeking, pure capitalism. You have 2 realistic ways to fight it, compete (start a community solar project for example) or engage with the political machine of your area.
 
Mithril said:
Not a SINGLE person who has received said subsidies gets to (mis)use "socialism". This move being pushed for by the companies is profit seeking, pure capitalism. You have 2 realistic ways to fight it, compete (start a community solar project for example) or engage with the political machine of your area.
Click to expand...
I think the reference to socialism was referring to the concept of the tiered system based on income. Whether that qualifies as socialism or not, it seems to me that ever since FDR and maybe before then governmental entities have sought to redistribute the wealth in one way or another. Penalize the people who are work hard, make good decisions, invest wisely, and reward the people who don't. Fortunately I don't live on the left coast so this specific issue doesn't impact me directly, but it affects all of us eventually. I'm not a fan of any program that penalizes people based on income or assets. Income tax is the epitome of this and a flat sales tax would be much more fair, but that's unlikely to happen. Ever.
 
EastTexCowboy said:
I think the reference to socialism was referring to the concept of the tiered system based on income. Whether that qualifies as socialism or not, it seems to me that ever since FDR and maybe before then governmental entities have sought to redistribute the wealth in one way or another. Penalize the people who are work hard, make good decisions, invest wisely, and reward the people who don't. Fortunately I don't live on the left coast so this specific issue doesn't impact me directly, but it affects all of us eventually. I'm not a fan of any program that penalizes people based on income or assets. Income tax is the epitome of this and a flat sales tax would be much more fair, but that's unlikely to happen. Ever.
Click to expand...
I'd be willing to be everything I own that 99.9% of the users of this forum do not own or make enough to be the on winning side (as in have it be a better end result for you) of flat vs graduated taxes all other things being equal (same total tax income, etc).

Besides, the real pro move is to just... not make most of your money via an income, such as by investing wisely.

Anyways these companies engaging in capitalism to get more profit is not a shock to me, nor is using whatever doublespeak or latching into whatever the hot topics are. Maybe I'm just way to jaded about it.

I don't think this is the forum to even get into the other issues really, plus I'm not actually smart enough to articulately discuss/argue half of it :)

Edit: If the first part of your counter argument to my first point is to change the scenario, that is not a strong argument.
 
Last edited:
Mithril said:
I'd be willing to be everything I own that 99.9% of the users of this forum do not own or make enough to be the on winning side (as in have it be a better end result for you) of flat vs graduated taxes all other things being equal (same total tax income, etc).
Click to expand...

I think we'd all be on the winning side of a system with modest flat tax funding minimal necessary government, which gave NO handouts especially for laziness. Prosperity in a nation where people put out effort and are rewarded. Rather than gradual decline into global insignificance.

The US once lead the world in technology and production. We are now a debtor nation dependent on others. Still making and exporting some good products, but running a massive deficit which picks the pocket of savers and devalues wages of workers.

The greatest losers in a system that gives handouts to the poor are the poor themselves.
 
I’m not too cool about having give income info or the state sharing income info with entities that I haven’t approved. Sounds like a good class action?
 
realpinochet said:
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.
Click to expand...

They do this in WA now - Yakima county requires a verified potable water source before a building permit is granted, and a $1500 permit to drill a well, and it must have a meter and you are billed for the water you pump out of your well.

They're learning from Komifornia. ?
 
The idea of being billed by some company (or government) for water from a well on your own property is insane. One of the benefits of having a well is not having a water bill.
 
EastTexCowboy said:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s really not that hard. Just try people, try.
This is a Solar forum.

Btw CA had a 97.5 Billion Surplus last year.
 
Last edited:
SparkyJJO said:
The idea of being billed by some company (or government) for water from a well on your own property is insane. One of the benefits of having a well is not having a water bill.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

diy solar

diy solar
Back
Top