California rolls out income based electric bills

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cujet

Cujet

Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
15,682
Location
Jupiter, Florida
ktla.com

California power companies roll out fixed-rate bill proposal

Editor’s Note: this article has been updated to include additional billing details. If you earn more, you pay more. That’s the basic idea behind sweeping changes proposed by California’s three larg…
ktla.com ktla.com

If you earn more, you pay more. ( for the "delivery fee" )

That’s the basic idea behind sweeping changes proposed by California’s three largest power companies that will impact your electricity bill.


  • Households earning less than $28,000 a year would pay a fixed charge of $15 a month on their electric bills in Edison and PG&E territories and $24 a month in SDG&E territory.
  • Households with annual income from $28,000 – $69,000 would pay $20 a month

And so on.....
 
Last edited:
Cujet said:
ktla.com

California power companies roll out fixed-rate bill proposal

Editor’s Note: this article has been updated to include additional billing details. If you earn more, you pay more. That’s the basic idea behind sweeping changes proposed by California’s three larg…
ktla.com ktla.com

If you earn more, you pay more. ( for the "delivery fee" )

That’s the basic idea behind sweeping changes proposed by California’s three largest power companies that will impact your electricity bill.


  • Households earning less than $28,000 a year would pay a fixed charge of $15 a month on their electric bills in Edison and PG&E territories and $24 a month in SDG&E territory.
  • Households with annual income from $28,000 – $69,000 would pay $20 a month

And so on.....
Click to expand...
Why work when not doing so gives you all the perks ... 🤔
 
Nobody read the articles I see. This only impacts a small part of the delivery fee- not the actual consumption which will still be priced normally. This is a small savings to lower income people, not exactly sure why income-based pricing on a 100% essential like electricity or water is controversial but here we are.
 
Zee09 said:
Why work when not doing so gives you all the perks ... 🤔
Click to expand...
Perks like having to choose between putting food on the table and paying rent? Man the whole $10 or whatever people are saving is really too much, they should have to suffer like the rest of us (who aren't really suffering at all in comparison to people living in CA making less than $28k/year.
 
That is just base rate, for being connected to the line, and not including delivery per kWhr let alone kWhr usage, right?

andrewg said:
What's wrong with paying for the electricity you use? Is that considered unfair now? Geez.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to defend this scheme, but to me it sounds kinda like the progressive tax rate we pay to Washington—all of us seem to benefit equally from national defense etc, yet what we have to pay is taxed at progressive rates. I don’t know if any states use a progressive state income tax? but unless if CA does, then this is just going down a bad road.

If CA wanted to make things cheaper for people, then just raise their income tax rate and offer to pay the base connection fee to the power company. Still not fair to high income earners but basically matching how it works for everything else.
 
dogememe said:
I mean, that’s just dumb. Charging based on consumption is the only way that makes sense.
Click to expand...
They still are. Read the article... Most places have two parts to the electric bill, delivery and supply. This affects the delivery fee not the supply which will continue to be billed based on usage as it always has.
 
supton said:
That is just base rate, for being connected to the line, and not including delivery per kWhr let alone kWhr usage, right?


I don’t want to defend this scheme, but to me it sounds kinda like the progressive tax rate we pay to Washington—all of us seem to benefit equally from national defense etc, yet what we have to pay is taxed at progressive rates. I don’t know if any states use a progressive state income tax? but unless if CA does, then this is just going down a bad road.

If CA wanted to make things cheaper for people, then just raise their income tax rate and offer to pay the base connection fee to the power company. Still not fair to high income earners but basically matching how it works for everything else.
Click to expand...
Trying to not go too far off topic, it's actually still incredible to me that there are people that consider progressive tax rates unfair. Of course, these are the same people that think that if you make say, $61k/year instead of $59k/year you will pay higher tax on all the income, rather than the $2k that would be over that hypothetical bracket. Understanding math and how tax rates work is not a requirement sadly to posting on the internet about those topics.
 
K.Aoi said:
Perks like having to choose between putting food on the table and paying rent? Man the whole $10 or whatever people are saving is really too much, they should have to suffer like the rest of us (who aren't really suffering at all in comparison to people living in CA making less than $28k/year.
Click to expand...
That's why I firmly believe in being proactive about where you live. I wouldn't even be buried in California let alone live there..
 
Zee09 said:
That's why I firmly believe in being proactive about where you live. I wouldn't even be buried in California let alone live there..
Click to expand...
Let's be honest, there is nowhere in the country where you can live decently on $28k/year even if you have no kids. This isn't a california exclusive problem either. Anywhere there is a city where people live, lower income people are still needed to fill the jobs that higher income people rely on, the difference is how bad are the living conditions and how far do they have to commute because they've been priced out of the area around where they actually work. It's exceptionally bad in California because of the housing crisis caused by NIMBYs who don't want more multi dwelling unit development to ruin their all important property values and sue the everliving crap out of every local and state government agency and developer they can to get their way. I could say what I really think of those people but I'll just turn what walterjay said back around on those people.
 
K.Aoi said:
Perks like having to choose between putting food on the table and paying rent? Man the whole $10 or whatever people are saving is really too much, they should have to suffer like the rest of us (who aren't really suffering at all in comparison to people living in CA making less than $28k/year.
Click to expand...
They already have food and rent assistance. So you're saying isn't successful at running a program? Shocking. This will be the same.
 
2strokeNorthstar said:
They already have food and rent assistance. So you're saying isn't successful at running a program? Shocking. This will be the same.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's not sufficient- and the reason is people who are opposed to those programs in the first place. I'm so, so tired of "well we can't fix every possible forseeable problem or hiccup so let's use that as an excuse to do absolutely nothing" being the refrain over and over and over again. This'll be the last thing I say because I don't forsee this thread not getting locked which should have been obvious from the second it was posted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
Solar system ... price, duration, etc. from sales pitch
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
3K
UncleDave
OVERKILL
California slashes residential solar feed-in rates
10 11 12
Replies
231
Views
8K
Snagglefoot
OVERKILL
Offshore wind industry in dire straights
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
4WD
W
  • Locked
Solar Power for House?
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Ws6
Jackson_Slugger
7-Eleven Owner to Buy Marathon’s Speedway for $21 Billion
2 3
Replies
43
Views
6K
PandaBear
Back
Top