CA state mandated rate restructure July 2024

[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.

[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]

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.

[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?

[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.

[SunEagle]

The CPUC is the common denominator in my mind. While the municipal untilities model seems more efficient, I have not seen one of the scale that we would need in California. The largest one I know of is Los Angelos Department of Water & Power and it is unique because it provides water as well.
We also have Community Choice Aggregation providers which can provide the generation portion and so at rates competitive with the IOUs. Of course the proposal discussed in this thread is just the distribuiton part of the bill. Many people in other parts of the country do not even see these kind of rates because the distribution and generation are bundled together.

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.

[Ampster]

Sounds like a change in Government is needed.

The CPUC is the common denominator in my mind. While the municipal untilities model seems more efficient, I have not seen one of the scale that we would need in California. The largest one I know of is Los Angelos Department of Water & Power and it is unique because it provides water as well.
We also have Community Choice Aggregation providers which can provide the generation portion and so at rates competitive with the IOUs. Of course the proposal discussed in this thread is just the distribuiton part of the bill. Many people in other parts of the country do not even see these kind of rates because the distribution and generation are bundled together.

[SunEagle]

Aside from losses due to liabilities for causing fires from downed power lines, I think the Iinvestor Owned Utilities have been getting the gaeranteed return on operations that the CPUC has always alowed them and I am not aware of any losses from operations. . What they think they deserve is that garanteed rate of return that the CPUC has always given them. I have never thought that government run entities could be more efficient than privatre investor companies but in California the municipal utilites have less expensive rates than the IOUs. It is also interesting that the municipal utilities are also not regulated by the CPUC.

Sounds like a change in Government is needed.

[Ampster]

I guess it took them to a point of when their losses really hurt them so now they are trying to get even or some of the money they think they deserve back

Aside from losses due to liabilities for causing fires from downed power lines, I think the Iinvestor Owned Utilities have been getting the gaeranteed return on operations that the CPUC has always alowed them and I am not aware of any losses from operations. . What they think they deserve is that garanteed rate of return that the CPUC has always given them. I have never thought that government run entities could be more efficient than privatre investor companies but in California the municipal utilites have less expensive rates than the IOUs. It is also interesting that the municipal utilities are also not regulated by the CPUC.

[J.P.M.]

I guess it took them to a point of when their losses really hurt them so now they are trying to get even or some of the money they think they deserve back

My guess is that that the losses are not that much worse for the POCOs than they've ever been but since PV is more cost effective due to decreased costs and commoditization of PV, they needed to do some things to decrease the incentive for their more well off customers away from installing ever more PV as well as regain some of the revenue from existing PV customers. Simple analysis of the early SDG & E proposals looks like a lot of middle and lower income residential users may actually see noticeably lower bills from the combination of a new monthly income charge and the $0.20/kWh or so decrease in the per kWh rate. Depending on how the POCOs sell that to the public may mean a lot less headwind for such proposals.

[SunEagle]

I meant to say it looks like POCO's in CA will finally actually kill rooftop solar with NEM3 and fixed fees after trying for years.

I guess it took them to a point of when their losses really hurt them so now they are trying to get even or some of the money they think they deserve back

[solardreamer]

I meant to say it looks like POCO's in CA will finally actually kill rooftop solar with NEM3 and fixed fees after trying for years.

[SunEagle]

Sure looks like POCO's are out to kill rooftop solar.

Are you just realizing that now. The POCO's are a business and will only do well if their money supporters make more then what they have invested.

[J.P.M.]

Sure looks like POCO's are out to kill rooftop solar.

Why would they not be and when haven't they been ?
They all got NEM more/less crammed down their throats many years ago and have been fighting it ever since.
I'm one of the biggest fans of alternate energy I know of, but the reality is subsidizing well off ratepayers is contrary to their business model and it's all just about business.

[solardreamer]

Sure looks like POCO's are out to kill rooftop solar.