California rolls out income based electric bills

[Cujet]

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/california-power-companies-roll-out-fixed-rate-bill-proposal/

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.....

 

[brianl703]

Awesome. Does that mean there's no extra charge for keeping the heat at 78F and the AC at 68F?

 

[wings&wheels]

Ridiculous......will be fought, and should be defeated.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Awesome. Does that mean there's no extra charge for keeping the heat at 78F and the AC at 68F?

No, that's a "base" fee. Consumption is added to that. It does little to control consumption; in fact it may increase it.
This is a proposal by 3 CA monopoly energy companies. I hate PG&E.

 

[Zee09]

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/california-power-companies-roll-out-fixed-rate-bill-proposal/

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.....

Why work when not doing so gives you all the perks ...

 

[andrewg]

What's wrong with paying for the electricity you use? Is that considered unfair now? Geez.

 

[PimTac]

It’s a very dumb idea. At those low rates No one will conserve.

 

[Dave Hess]

Maybe Tesla owners can pay more since being affluent is a bad thing and someone has to make things ‘right’ .

 

[walterjay]

I am too polite to call the folks behind this what they are. But it has something to do with the north end of a south bound horse.

 

[K.Aoi]

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.

 

[dogememe]

I mean, that’s just dumb. Charging based on consumption is the only way that makes sense.

 

[K.Aoi]

Why work when not doing so gives you all the perks ...

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.

 

[supton]

That is just base rate, for being connected to the line, and not including delivery per kWhr let alone kWhr usage, right?

What's wrong with paying for the electricity you use? Is that considered unfair now? Geez.

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.

 

[Zee09]

I am too polite to call the folks behind this what they are. But it has something to do with the north end of a south bound horse.

Wow you are a little ain't you...
Yes I will close the door on my way out..

 

[K.Aoi]

I mean, that’s just dumb. Charging based on consumption is the only way that makes sense.

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.

 

[K.Aoi]

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.

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.

 

[Zee09]

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's why I firmly believe in being proactive about where you live. I wouldn't even be buried in California let alone live there..

 

[K.Aoi]

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..

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.

 

[2strokeNorthstar]

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.

They already have food and rent assistance. So you're saying isn't successful at running a program? Shocking. This will be the same.

 

[K.Aoi]

They already have food and rent assistance. So you're saying isn't successful at running a program? Shocking. This will be the same.

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.