31–40 of 44 posts
And handing out subsidies for electricity/energy usage is the last thing global warming needs.
And this is huge subsidy to high energy users from those who are saving and reducing their energy usage.
Taxation should be done by government not utility companies. I’m deeply disturbed that such a thing could even be proposed And handing out subsidies for electricity/energy usage is the last thing global warming needs. And this is huge subsidy to high energy users from those who are saving and reducing their energy usage.
The article uses confusing and misleading terminology. The _rate_ charged for electricity is in no way based on income; this is about the "residential fixed charge", the bill component you pay regardless of usage. This fixed charge was introduced to counteract a freeloader phenomenon from people who benefited from electric infrastructure but paid next to nothing because of solar rebates.
This is a horrible proposal. Whether or not you are upset about PG&E knowing your income, the mere fact that it would be a flat rate reduces or eliminates the incentive to reduce electricity usage. If this goes through, we will probably see people running their AC and heat more because there's no incremental cost for them to do so. We need to be incentivizing reduction in energy use, not making it free to use more.
This is a horrible proposal. Whether or not you are upset about PG&E knowing your income, the mere fact that it would be a flat rate reduces or eliminates the incentive to reduce electricity usage. If this goes through, we will probably see people running their AC and heat more because there's no incremental cost for them to do so. We need to be incentivizing reduction in energy use, not making it free to use more.
The real problem with the proposal is that it perpetuates hidden subsidies for rural electric networks. The progressive fixed rates should be related to the cost to connect that particular household to the grid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
.47c a kWh. Highest outside of Hawaii, third or fourth highest in the world. You're not paying that in Florida.
For CA, depends very much on where you are. $0.47 is not the highest in CA, nor in the continental US. Here in Boston, my rate is $0.14479/Kwh for delivery with a $0.33891/kWh supply charge, or $0.4837 per kWh. Yep, higher than you're paying. That excludes a fixed standing charge of $7/mo. About 53% of our base load (IIRC) is natural gas, so when natural gas wholesale prices spiked, so did our rates by 80+ percent ba…
Guess I'm burning coal.
I used ~200 kW-h last month, so at least it wouldn't ruin my life to pay $0.50 per. I don't have AC, so even with a gas furnace, the winter months tend to be my largest electric (running the blower and hydronic pumps).
Taxation should be done by government not utility companies. I’m deeply disturbed that such a thing could even be proposed And handing out subsidies for electricity/energy usage is the last thing global warming needs. And this is huge subsidy to high energy users from those who are saving and reducing their energy usage.
This _is_ done by government -- the scheme is being implemented to comply with AB 205. The article uses confusing and misleading terminology. The _rate_ charged for electricity is in no way based on income; this is about the "residential fixed charge", the bill component you pay regardless of usage. This fixed charge was introduced to counteract a freeloader phenomenon from people who benefited from electric infrastr…
The rich don't pay any taxes so they probably won't pay anything for utilities under this policy
https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-t...
Taxation should be done by government not utility companies. I’m deeply disturbed that such a thing could even be proposed And handing out subsidies for electricity/energy usage is the last thing global warming needs. And this is huge subsidy to high energy users from those who are saving and reducing their energy usage.
This _is_ done by government -- the scheme is being implemented to comply with AB 205. The article uses confusing and misleading terminology. The _rate_ charged for electricity is in no way based on income; this is about the "residential fixed charge", the bill component you pay regardless of usage. This fixed charge was introduced to counteract a freeloader phenomenon from people who benefited from electric infrastr…
S: We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
L: But aren't the snakes even worse?
S: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
L: Then we're stuck with gorillas!
S: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.
(This joke is about net metering.)
While I understand the desire to have a progressive pricing scheme to offset some of the criticism around solar subsidies being "subsidies for the rich", I think this would be a terrible precedent as far as invasion of privacy. I think it is cynical overreach. There is absolutely no reason that the utility company should gain access to household income data of their entire market. If the CA government thinks we shoul…