CA state mandated rate restructure July 2024

[J.P.M.]

I understand. I guess I am blessed with a power & fuel rate that combined is still at or below $0.09/kWh with Withlacoochee Electric. Some of the other POCO's here in Florida have been asking our PUC for rate increases due to the number of new solar fields they have recently installed.

I feel bad that CA has such high electric rates but at least you can justify installing solar there.

As Ampster has written, or at least implied, the municipal utilities in CA seem to keep costs down. I've got a 2d home in LaQuinta taking electrical service from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID). There is a $9.60/billing period connection fee, one kWh rate and a per kWh added fuel charge. There is no T.O.U. rate or schedule at this time.
For 2 years since owning a home in the desert, my average bottom line total delivered cost/kWh for that place has been pretty close to $0.20/kWh and hasn't gone up or down more than maybe $0.01/kWh in that 2 yr. period.

That $0.20/kWh rate is probably a lot compared to your POCO and lots of others, but it's all relative. CA I.O.U. rates are much higher.
For example, If I didn't have the array on my primary San Diego N. county home, current per kWh delivered cost from SDG & E for that property based on a 14 year average usage is ~ $0.48856/kWh. And that's on tiered rates. If I was T.O.U. it would be higher by maybe a dime/kWh.
Now, I'm not bitching about that. I walked into CA in 1995 with my eyes open, my feet are not nailed to CA real estate and the weather here is better than where I came from.
I'd move to the desert full time for lots of reasons besides low electric rates but I'd probably be single in a couple of months.

[Reid1boys]

IM late to the party, but just recently read about this. Here is the problem as I see it.
One, we havent seen the final proposal, so here is what I suspect will happen. Rates will only lower on your first 500 Kwh of usage. After that, rates will go way up, so those of you thinking users will have lower bills for their power consumption are off. This is clearly a money grab from solar owners like myself who are in NEM 1.0 and my 10.8 kwh system 100% offsets my electricity consumption for the year.

My connection fee increased this year from 20 to 30 dollars per month. Rates increased 11% this year and another 4% next year, which obviously doesnt impact me. So this flat usage fee is a bullseye on the backs of those solar customers.

They didnt get the "Solar tax," done with the implementation of NEM3.0, so they will get that tax this way. The thing I do not understand is how they can possibly tie your flat fee to your income bracket? But again, who is it that is likely to be in the upper bracket getting the highest fat fee added to their bill? Solar owners.

I spent the $23,400 after tax credits on my system knowing the rules of the game. The state reached their solar goals and now wants to change the rules of the game. I am already hearing about a class action suit and I suspect their will be more than 1. There will be 1 from solar owners and there will be another just for the income based fee attached to our bill. If they can add a tax to my bill based upon income for electricity, what keeps cities from doing the same for water and garbage bills?How about cable?

Imagine going to a gas station and having a tiered rate for gasoline. Could you imagine the outrage that would happen if someone in upper income paid $7.00 per gallon for gas and people in welfare paid $2.50?

[Reid1boys]

In reading the article, the utility companies make it like solar owners were given their systems for free and now are free loading off the system. They conveniently forget the thousands of dollars we spent up front. I have been a Democrat my entire life....... that could change if they actually start charging me a flat fee to subsidize others electric use. By the way, we already subsidize others electric use in the CARE program designed to lower low income electric bills. Enough is enough.

[J.P.M.]

IM late to the party, but just recently read about this. Here is the problem as I see it.
One, we havent seen the final proposal,

As I wrote, I suspect there will be a lot of wrangling and several iterations before the CPUC votes on any rule changes.
If the past is any indication of the CPUC's future, NEM 1.0 users like you and I may get dinged for added monthly base charges while retaining the favorable NEM 1.0 basics, but only time and the CPUC will tell.

[Reid1boys]

As I wrote, I suspect there will be a lot of wrangling and several iterations before the CPUC votes on any rule changes.
If the past is any indication of the CPUC's future, NEM 1.0 users like you and I may get dinged for added monthly base charges while retaining the favorable NEM 1.0 basics, but only time and the CPUC will tell.

It is funny how they try to distinguish between what you pay for electricity and your final bill. Like I give one damn that I pay zero for electricity, but have 85 dollars per month in a flat fee attached. They will say, but look, we have not hurt you at all as we kept your NEM 1.0 in place, so you therefor get to continue to see a basically no charge for your electricity. BUT.... here, pay us 85 dollars each month anyways, just because.

WTF?
And yes, people with NEM 1.0 will be hurt the most and that is the exact reason the bill was written in this way. They want to extrapolate more money out of us that took advantage of the deal they were offering us..... because it simply isnt "Equitable," that low income people didnt get the same "Deal," that we got.

[SunEagle]

It is funny how they try to distinguish between what you pay for electricity and your final bill. Like I give one damn that I pay zero for electricity, but have 85 dollars per month in a flat fee attached. They will say, but look, we have not hurt you at all as we kept your NEM 1.0 in place, so you therefor get to continue to see a basically no charge for your electricity. BUT.... here, pay us 85 dollars each month anyways, just because.

WTF?
And yes, people with NEM 1.0 will be hurt the most and that is the exact reason the bill was written in this way. They want to extrapolate more money out of us that took advantage of the deal they were offering us..... because it simply isnt "Equitable," that low income people didnt get the same "Deal," that we got.

And low income people will never be able to install solar and get any deal. So as I have said before. If you can afford solar then suck it up and pay for it or get out of the place that you end up paying high electric rates.

[Reid1boys]

And low income people will never be able to install solar and get any deal. So as I have said before. If you can afford solar then suck it up and pay for it or get out of the place that you end up paying high electric rates.

and low income cant afford the vacation I went on in Cancun either, or the car I drive.... so what is your point? The state of California told all of us.. hey, we have a deal for you if you put these panels on your house, thus helping the residents of the state by reducing the stress on the grid. Many of us said yes to that deal. Now a few years later after the state has met its goals for rooftop solar they want to change the terms of that deal.

Beyond solar, the idea that you should pay more for the same product based upon your income level is criminal in a capitalistic society.
Low Income people already get reduced rates in the CARE program that lowers low income people's bill.

[J.P.M.]

and low income cant afford the vacation I went on in Cancun either, or the car I drive.... so what is your point? The state of California told all of us.. hey, we have a deal for you if you put these panels on your house, thus helping the residents of the state by reducing the stress on the grid. Many of us said yes to that deal. Now a few years later after the state has met its goals for rooftop solar they want to change the terms of that deal.

Beyond solar, the idea that you should pay more for the same product based upon your income level is criminal in a capitalistic society.
Low Income people already get reduced rates in the CARE program that lowers low income people's bill.

Well Reid, I guess in the eyes of maybe a lot of folks this may flush out as one of those times when life is just unfair.
Others may see it as payback time.
Opinions vary.
As for the idea of paying more for anything based on more income being unfair in a capitalistic society, it seems no one has relayed that information to the IRS yet.
Maybe you could do us all a favor and get them in the loop.

Many of us said yes to the NEM deal you write of (and it was - and still is - a deal) but without exception, every actual and potential PV owner I spoke with - and I've spoken with most of the 150+ NEM customers in my HOA - cited potential future bill reduction as the overwhelming and usually only reason for considering PV. None of them give as much as the north end of a southbound rat about saving energy, duck curves, stressing the grid, the poor or anything else.

I do remember hearing (and still see/hear) a lot of solar peddlers and their media shills saying, or at least implying, PV would save the planet and eliminate out electric bills to boot. A lot of us drank that Kool-Aid with a lot of uninformed wishful thinking, particularly those of us of the landed gentry that have access to the capital to handle the upfront cost for reduction of future electric bills, but I don't recall anyone saying or thinking it would be for zero upfront cost.

I think we on this forum would be time and effort ahead if we waited until all the dust settles around this issue of the latest CA efforts to deal with PV and the I.O.U. electricity rates before we attempt meaningful dialogue about the issue.

Maybe folks not as financially well heeled as you seem to be might find it a bit easier to choose what to do with limited resources if they were to get a break on their electric bills.
Not everyone qualifies for CARE rates.
Sounds like you've never had to decide which bill to not pay. Some folks are not quite as financially fortunate as you and I.

At this time, the bill's implementation (or even survival in the courts at this point) has not been determined so it's all a matter of jaw jacking right now.
The final outcome will most likely look a lot different than what we all might want to infer from what we've seen so far.

Whatever the outcome, most NEM 1.0 customers like you and I have had at least 6 years, and most a good deal longer to wring cost effectiveness out of their decision.
For a lot of NEM 2.0 customers, time to breakeven may have been achieved my now or soon will be. Folks that miss the boat and get NEM 3.0 have some education and decision making to go through.
Anyway, no one ever said NEM was a forever deal.

And too, there are always the most cost-effective methods of electricity bill reduction - lifestyle changes and energy conservation - available for all of us. You pay nothing for what you don't use.

Take what you want of the above. Scrap the rest.

[SunEagle]

and low income cant afford the vacation I went on in Cancun either, or the car I drive.... so what is your point? The state of California told all of us.. hey, we have a deal for you if you put these panels on your house, thus helping the residents of the state by reducing the stress on the grid. Many of us said yes to that deal. Now a few years later after the state has met its goals for rooftop solar they want to change the terms of that deal.

Beyond solar, the idea that you should pay more for the same product based upon your income level is criminal in a capitalistic society.
Low Income people already get reduced rates in the CARE program that lowers low income people's bill.

As far as I am concerned if you can afford solar you can pay for the increases on your electric bill.

I am done arguing with you so have a nice day.

[Reid1boys]

Well Reid, I guess in the eyes of maybe a lot of folks this may flush out as one of those times when life is just unfair.
Others may see it as payback time.
Opinions vary.
As for the idea of paying more for anything based on more income being unfair in a capitalistic society, it seems no one has relayed that information to the IRS yet.
Maybe you could do us all a favor and get them in the loop.

Many of us said yes to the NEM deal you write of (and it was - and still is - a deal) but without exception, every actual and potential PV owner I spoke with - and I've spoken with most of the 150+ NEM customers in my HOA - cited potential future bill reduction as the overwhelming and usually only reason for considering PV. None of them give as much as the north end of a southbound rat about saving energy, duck curves, stressing the grid, the poor or anything else.

I do remember hearing (and still see/hear) a lot of solar peddlers and their media shills saying, or at least implying, PV would save the planet and eliminate out electric bills to boot. A lot of us drank that Kool-Aid with a lot of uninformed wishful thinking, particularly those of us of the landed gentry that have access to the capital to handle the upfront cost for reduction of future electric bills, but I don't recall anyone saying or thinking it would be for zero upfront cost.

I think we on this forum would be time and effort ahead if we waited until all the dust settles around this issue of the latest CA efforts to deal with PV and the I.O.U. electricity rates before we attempt meaningful dialogue about the issue.

Maybe folks not as financially well heeled as you seem to be might find it a bit easier to choose what to do with limited resources if they were to get a break on their electric bills.
Not everyone qualifies for CARE rates.
Sounds like you've never had to decide which bill to not pay. Some folks are not quite as financially fortunate as you and I.

At this time, the bill's implementation (or even survival in the courts at this point) has not been determined so it's all a matter of jaw jacking right now.
The final outcome will most likely look a lot different than what we all might want to infer from what we've seen so far.

Whatever the outcome, most NEM 1.0 customers like you and I have had at least 6 years, and most a good deal longer to wring cost effectiveness out of their decision.
For a lot of NEM 2.0 customers, time to breakeven may have been achieved my now or soon will be. Folks that miss the boat and get NEM 3.0 have some education and decision making to go through.
Anyway, no one ever said NEM was a forever deal.

And too, there are always the most cost-effective methods of electricity bill reduction - lifestyle changes and energy conservation - available for all of us. You pay nothing for what you don't use.

Take what you want of the above. Scrap the rest.

Correct, nobody ever said NEM was a forever deal.... just a 20 year deal, and we arent even close to our 20 years.
As far as me not having to decide what bills to pay.......well, when people say I have white privilege, I say yep. My food stamps came to us in books when I was a kid... it was awesome.

So yea, I know all to well about being poor, so poor I missed 2 weeks of school in 7th grade because I couldnt replace the shoes that were stolen from me. That experience caused me to work so I would NEVER know what that was like as an adult. I have little empathy for those that are simply to lazy to do what I did. Work 2 jobs and go to school full time AFTER I did 4 years in the Marine Corps to help pay for school.

I should not be taxed additionally because I worked out of poverty.
Oh, no lifestyle change can have any impact on this equity tax.We already produce as much electricity as we use. So reducing my electrical use wont benefit me at all. I currently pay 30 dollars per month for electricity... thats it. I never owe them after we true up. Now, Ill owe them an additional 85 a month (on top of the 30 connection fee)no matter how much I use.

I do agree with you..... this isnt over just yet.

[Reid1boys]

As far as I am concerned if you can afford solar you can pay for the increases on your electric bill.

I am done arguing with you so have a nice day.

who is arguing.... but why stop with electric bills. You know what, since I can also afford it, lets double all of the registration fees for my cars, after that, lets double my water and garbage bill, add a couple more thousand to my property taxes, add 30% to all of my insurance premiums, and lets move that 2.5% mortgage rate up to 7.... good, now I am close to living month to month and can finally have some equity in our world.

Your comment makes ZERO sense, but Im gonna guess this equity tax wont apply to you?

[bcroe]

Choose your place, and live with it. No water, sewer, garbage, mortgage
bills here in the country, real estate is cheap(er). OK we have several cold
months, we are used to dealing with that.

The electric bill here was already under 5000 KWh a year, but experience
going back to 1971, was that the heating bill would keep increasing. Only
needed it those cold months, but just the monthly connect fee kept getting
bigger.

So the solution in 2013 was, generate heat as well as electric from solar.
How long to break even, not a primary concern, but lately it looks to be
sooner than I thought. And eliminating fuel charges is really quite satisfying.
Bruce Roe

[J.P.M.]

Correct, nobody ever said NEM was a forever deal.... just a 20 year deal, and we arent even close to our 20 years.
As far as me not having to decide what bills to pay.......well, when people say I have white privilege, I say yep. My food stamps came to us in books when I was a kid... it was awesome.

So yea, I know all to well about being poor, so poor I missed 2 weeks of school in 7th grade because I couldnt replace the shoes that were stolen from me. That experience caused me to work so I would NEVER know what that was like as an adult. I have little empathy for those that are simply to lazy to do what I did. Work 2 jobs and go to school full time AFTER I did 4 years in the Marine Corps to help pay for school.

I should not be taxed additionally because I worked out of poverty.
Oh, no lifestyle change can have any impact on this equity tax.We already produce as much electricity as we use. So reducing my electrical use wont benefit me at all. I currently pay 30 dollars per month for electricity... thats it. I never owe them after we true up. Now, Ill owe them an additional 85 a month (on top of the 30 connection fee)no matter how much I use.

I do agree with you..... this isnt over just yet.

Reid:

Understood, 5 X 5.
We have some similar background.
I'm Clear.
Semper Fi.
J.P.M.

[foggysail]

Correct, nobody ever said NEM was a forever deal.... just a 20 year deal, and we arent even close to our 20 years.
As far as me not having to decide what bills to pay.......well, when people say I have white privilege, I say yep. My food stamps came to us in books when I was a kid... it was awesome.

So yea, I know all to well about being poor, so poor I missed 2 weeks of school in 7th grade because I couldnt replace the shoes that were stolen from me. That experience caused me to work so I would NEVER know what that was like as an adult. I have little empathy for those that are simply to lazy to do what I did. Work 2 jobs and go to school full time AFTER I did 4 years in the Marine Corps to help pay for school.

I should not be taxed additionally because I worked out of poverty.
Oh, no lifestyle change can have any impact on this equity tax.We already produce as much electricity as we use. So reducing my electrical use wont benefit me at all. I currently pay 30 dollars per month for electricity... thats it. I never owe them after we true up. Now, Ill owe them an additional 85 a month (on top of the 30 connection fee)no matter how much I use.

I do agree with you..... this isnt over just yet.

Yeah... I had to quit high school in my junior year for work needed to help feed the family. Later in life with a wife and two kids, I made up for those school deficiencies, sold our house and matriculated into URI's College of Engineering. Yeah.....4 hard years of study for my BSEE while I worked almost a full time job supporting my wife and kids. Yesterday's WSJ told that our illustrious President is about to force those who take mortgages with good credit scores to pay an additional ( $40/month for $400K) fee to help those with poor credit get mortgages. This is scheduled to start on 1 May! CRAZY!!!

[J.P.M.]

Yesterday's WSJ told that our illustrious President is about to force those who take mortgages with good credit scores to pay an additional ( $40/month for $400K) fee to help those with poor credit get mortgages. This is scheduled to start on 1 May! CRAZY!!!

Kind of the inverse of well off CA PV owners no longer having their electric bills subsidized by the usually less well-off non-NEM customers huh?

Now, can we leave the politics and mortgages out of it ?