CA state mandated rate restructure July 2024

[RichardCullip]

This thread reminds me of how great my brother will have it when he disengages from the grid. Massive solar on the house he's buying, but he doesn't want to be associated with PG&E so he wants to take the whole house off grid.

Is that even legal in California? I'm under the impression that if one of the big 3 California POCO's service your area you need to be connected.

[Ampster]

Is that even legal in California? I'm under the impression that if one of the big 3 California POCO's service your area you need to be connected.

Yes, it is a building code requirement for safety reasons. There is nothing that says you have to use that power but the new tarriff, in whatever form it takes, will insure that you will pay some additional fixed fee beyond the existing fixed fee.

[Ampster]

Here is a more recent artical from a source biased in favor of solar.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/04/27/california-proposes-income-based-fixed-electricity-charges/

[TSHRED]

Here is a more recent artical from a source biased in favor of solar.
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/04/...icity-charges/

I still don't see anyway they can get an accurate read on household income. Way too many variables.

[Ampster]

I still don't see anyway they can get an accurate read on household income. Way too many variables.

.

One variation I saw suggested is that tha default rate would be the highest rate and the burden would be on the user to prove that they have lower income to get to the lower fixed rate based on proof the user would supply.

[J.P.M.]

In that context, to be more acurate about this issue, we are not waiting for this to become law as implied in post #49. This is a rate issue that will be decided administrativly by the CPUC. The law driving this issue has already been passed by the legislator and signed by the governor.

It sure has. The thing (bill AB 205) is law. But the implementation of a lot of it still needs to be hashed out and then those particulars voted on by the full CPUC.
My wording in post #'s 2 and 49 of this thread could have been better.
The vote I was referring to was the one the CPUC must take on or before 07/2024 on the final implementation of fixed fees as part of the AB 205 legislation not the legislature's vote on AB 205. The fixed fees portion of AB 205 was what Charie's post was about and will need to be voted on by the full CPUC before implementation which probably won't happen in full much before 2025 or so.
No changes will be made on fixed fees until after the CPUC issues that final decision on implementation. As is the usual case, a lot can change between now and July of 2024. Also, similar to a lot of other energy policy and regulation, the final form that implementation takes will likely be different for each I.O.U. A lot of similarity to be sure, but each will have its own quirks.
The passed legislation (AB 205) gives direction and intent. The CPUC fleshes out the particulars after a lot of public comment and input form interested parties including the I.O.U.s and public advocacy groups or outfits like that public advocacy group referenced in your included Solar Power mag. piece. Those are the types stuff that we'll see a lot of. The I.O.U.s have already released their versions and wants. There will be a lot more.
What we will be waiting for is the wrangling in meetings and discussions that take place. Then, after all that, the full CPUC will vote on the final implementation of how the AB 205 mandated fixed fees will be implemented.
That's the voting I was referring to.
There's a long way to go yet and the final form of the implementation - if it survives all the legal challenges - is far from clear.

[Reid1boys]

Here is a more recent artical from a source biased in favor of solar.
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/04/...icity-charges/

A couple of things stick out to me in how they are trying to pull this off.
1) They do exactly like they did when they tried to tax solar users. They pull on your heart strings. 1st, they lower the rates for lower income users.... how can you be against anything that helps out the low income?
2) They say lower income customers should see their bills lower by about 10 per month. Middle class should see their bills go up about 10 per month( Im guessing that is already an increase in revenue to the utilities just with those two groups. BUT..... they will get to slam solar customers with upwards of 85 dollars per month when they were paying NOTHING. Notice how they dont mention that part of this equation.

These utilities have several years worth of data. They can look at how much power is being consumed and based upon that, that is how they came up with how much to "Lower," the rates based upon usage. So they can say... your bill is actually going down. BS.... call it what you want. Each month will middle class customers be writing a check for less or more money?
This thing stinks no matter how you look at it.

What is that old saying about putting lipstick on a pig? Its still a pig.


From the article: However, the PAO said this ratemaking proposal is more about affordability, equity, and readying for electrification.

“This is not about solar,” said Campbell. “This is about equity

Affordability? ahh.... see how they do that. We are making it more affordable for low income.... that has to be a good thing, right?
Equity? Equity for who? How does equity play into ANYTHING? Is it equitable that some of us invested 20 plus grad upfront to avoid paying all these rates in the future and now you want to pull the rug out from under us?????

[Reid1boys]

There's a long way to go yet and the final form of the implementation - if it survives all the legal challenges - is far from clear.

I do not know the exact legal reasons there will be challenges, but there will be challenges. All of us already pay state and federal income taxes and the rate you pay is based upon your income..... you all know this.

The thought of taxing us AGAIN based upon income I just cant imagine is legal. More importantly, if they can do this with electric bills (in the name of equity), what would keep this from happening elsewhere? Why wouldnt your water bill be based upon your income? Why wouldnt tolls for roads and bridges be based upon income? and on and on.

I just cant imagine this can survive..... at least I hope it cant survive.

[Ampster]

........

The thought of taxing us AGAIN based upon income I just cant imagine is legal. More importantly, if they can do this with electric bills (in the name of equity), what would keep this from happening elsewhere? Why wouldnt your water bill be based upon your income? Why wouldnt tolls for roads and bridges be based upon income? and on and on.

I just cant imagine this can survive..... at least I hope it cant survive.

This is a rate plan..There are already rate plans that are lower based on need or some income level. I believe they are called CARE plans. I don't like it either but it has some momentum. There is an economic argument for a fixed charge to cover fixed expenses such as infrastructure and grid upgrades.

[Reid1boys]

This is a rate plan..There are already rate plans that are lower based on need or some income level. I believe they are called CARE plans. I don't like it either but it has some momentum. There is an economic argument for a fixed charge to cover fixed expenses such as infrastructure and grid upgrades.

If this fixed charge was an equal amount for EVERY customer, you wouldnt hear a peep out of me. But trying to ONLY charge, or charge an amount that is based upon my income is insane. Even worse is to try and say they are actually lowering our rates and that this is not a rate increase....lol. REALLY??? So in the left hand you lower what I pay for electricity, but in the right hand you demand an even larger amount so in the end I pay MORE money...... you can NOT call that a reduction in rates. Well, you could, but youd be dishonest.

[Reid1boys]

This is a rate plan..There are already rate plans that are lower based on need or some income level. I believe they are called CARE plans. I don't like it either but it has some momentum. There is an economic argument for a fixed charge to cover fixed expenses such as infrastructure and grid upgrades.

Correct, but the CARE program costs every user some amount based upon usage. Im guessing they have a fee in the non bypassable charges that pays for the CARE program.

Imagine if the CARE program was 100% funded by solar users only.

[J.P.M.]

.

One variation I saw suggested is that tha default rate would be the highest rate and the burden would be on the user to prove that they have lower income to get to the lower fixed rate based on proof the user would supply.

I saw something from another source that suggested the CPUC might is considering letting the I.O.U.s might offer a further rate reduction in tither the fixed monthly charge of the per kWh rate for access to customer's financial information. this is the kind of speculation that will probably only ramp up and feed the rumor mill until the CPUC gets all the input and votes/approves new rate schedules.

[Reid1boys]

I saw something from another source that suggested the CPUC might is considering letting the I.O.U.s might offer a further rate reduction in tither the fixed monthly charge of the per kWh rate for access to customer's financial information. this is the kind of speculation that will probably only ramp up and feed the rumor mill until the CPUC gets all the input and votes/approves new rate schedules.

Well I will never volunteer to any business our income. They are attempting to change the way our society has operated since I was born. That is not going to go over well. IM guessing 90% of the public has no idea about any flat fee being added to your bill based upon income. Once it comes out, THAT is when the people will start screaming. People just pay little attention to the world in which they live.

[Old_Man]

A couple of things stick out to me in how they are trying to pull this off.
1) They do exactly like they did when they tried to tax solar users. They pull on your heart strings. 1st, they lower the rates for lower income users.... how can you be against anything that helps out the low income?
2) They say lower income customers should see their bills lower by about 10 per month. Middle class should see their bills go up about 10 per month( Im guessing that is already an increase in revenue to the utilities just with those two groups. BUT..... they will get to slam solar customers with upwards of 85 dollars per month when they were paying NOTHING. Notice how they dont mention that part of this equation.

These utilities have several years worth of data. They can look at how much power is being consumed and based upon that, that is how they came up with how much to "Lower," the rates based upon usage. So they can say... your bill is actually going down. BS.... call it what you want. Each month will middle class customers be writing a check for less or more money?
This thing stinks no matter how you look at it.

What is that old saying about putting lipstick on a pig? Its still a pig.


From the article: However, the PAO said this ratemaking proposal is more about affordability, equity, and readying for electrification.

“This is not about solar,” said Campbell. “This is about equity

Affordability? See how they do that. We are making it more affordable for low income.... that has to be a good thing, right?
Equity? Equity for who? How does equity play into ANYTHING? Is it equitable that some of us invested 20 plus grad upfront to avoid paying all these rates in the future and now you want to pull the rug out from under us?????

A friend just spent close to a million dollars for a house in the Sierra with a sh** ton of solar on it. It's grid-tied now, but he wants to go off-grid and he has the panels to make it work. Will he REALLY be FORCED to remain on the grid? That's **cked up.

[Ampster]

A friend just spent close to a million dollars for a house in the Sierra with a sh** ton of solar on it. It's grid-tied now, but he wants to go off-grid and he has the panels to make it work. Will he REALLY be FORCED to remain on the grid? That's **cked up.

It is typically a building code issue that requires a connection. That does not mean he has to use that connection. However he probably has to pay the minimum bill and that is possibly going up. If he has existing GT solar he may be able to add batteries with just a building permit and use the grid as back up and seasonal storage. I do that and this winter I was a net cosumer of close to 3 mWhs of power but if weather holds I will bed able to reduce that substantially by TrueUp and have a small credit. Last year I did the same thing and only paid the minimum bills.