sdl5

Oh, and because that bait and switch on solar adopters while sucking dry everyone else wasn't enough:

Middle or upper income? Californians brace for higher electric bills Column: Solar owners will not escape fixed charges for electricity, either, but low-income households stand to get a break

If you’re one of the 12 million-plus or so households in California that do not have solar panels — meaning you buy electricity from Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, or Pacific Gas & Electric — your bills have essentially doubled over the past decade (has your income?). Electric bills in California are now twice the national average, and a new income-based, fixed service charge means they’re headed even higher for many middle- and upper-income folks.

This time, the 1 million-plus or so rooftop solar households won’t be shielded from their neighbors’ pain. Since most solar owners depend on the same infrastructure as everyone else for power once the sun goes down, they should also pay for its upkeep, the thinking goes.

Meet California’s first-in-the-nation, income-based fixed service charge, aiming to lessen the load on lower-income folks. The nitty-gritty details are still being debated — fiercely — but decisions are due by July, to take effect in 2025 or 2026. There are various proposals, but they stand to shrink what we pay for electricity by some 5 to 18%, while divvying up what we pay for the infrastructure that delivers that electricity according to how much money we make.

Low-income households could save some $300 a year, according to plans proposed by the Big Three investor-owned utilities (Edison, SDG&E and PG&E). Top-tier earners, making more than $180,000 a year or so, could see increases of some $500 a year.

(Keep in mind the Cost of Basic Living here in the SF Bay Area is so high already you qualify as low income homebuyer if you earn $105,000 a year- but the State govt and operations like CPUC as well as the IRS still treat that as upper middle class or higher in spendable wealth.)

Edison, PG&E and SDG&E propose a standard fixed charge on all residential customers’ bills, except for lower-income customers enrolled in the state’s CARE or FERA programs, whose income already qualifies them for bill discounts.

OH, THE CARES PROGRAM- THIS IS SUPER LOW MAX INCOME!

There’s much critics hate here — including that some lower-income households might end up paying more, not less — but don’t lay blame or thanks for this sea change at the CPUC’s feet. It’s just following orders.

This progressive bit of ratemaking is brought to you via unassuming little paragraphs in a bill passed (with precious little public comment or debate) by the Legislature and signed by the governor last year: Assembly Bill 205. It repeals the existing cap on fixed charges — a wee $10 a month — and requires the CPUC to develop fixed charges “on an income-graduated basis with no fewer than three income thresholds, such that a low-income ratepayer would realize lower average monthly bill without making any changes in usage,” says a Senate analysis of the bill.

One proposal would charge the lowest-income users a fixed $15 a month (Edison and PG&E) or $24 (SDG&E), while the highest-income users would pay $85 a month (Edison), $92 (PG&E) or $128 (SDG&E).

(Another plan proposes a range of $30-70/month more.)

---

(Keep in mind I myself currently use $40-70 TOTAL ENERGY COST A MONTH... BUT I DO NOT QUALIFY FOR CARES, EVEN ON MY SMALL INCOME.)

Highest income allowed to qualify for a household of one or two is just over $39k:

https://www.pge.com/en/account/billing-and-assistance/financial-assistance/california-alternate-rates-for-energy-program.html#accordion-featured-e3ebf4de67-item-59286abf1a

---

Ah, and now we come to it:

Utility profits are set by the CPUC itself at roughly 10%. The easiest way to think about the change is like this: Under the old method, the utility collected $100. Under the new method, the utility will still collect $100 — but who is paying that $100, and how, will shift.

It’s really a modest change meant to lower the price of electricity so folks have incentive to ditch their gas cars and appliances and go all-electric, supporters say. It would also make bills more predictable and transparent.

Critics, from SAVE THE FROGS! to the California Assembly, disagree.

.... much more on the fighting here ...

“With these proposals, there would be a decoupling of electricity policy from the volumetric and conservation-based model that the CPUC has long been promoting. For instance, even under some of the lower proposed flat rates, analyses show that those who consume more electricity, such as a single-family home with pool, will receive a discount at the expense of a low-electricity user, such as an apartment renter. There is a very real possibility that these proposals could discourage the kind of conservation that is needed in order to avoid rolling blackouts that have threatened the state too often over the past several years,” the (objecting) legislators wrote.

Followed by a whole lot of very different types' reasons for objection- and revealing that super high utility exec pay is from charging customers the highest profit margin on power, not from the shareholder profit margins!

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/12/04/middle-or-upper-income-brace-for-higher-electric-bills/