California: Electric Bills Based on Income

1. 88

   GA Andersonposted 7 weeks ago

   California's Latest Tax-the-Rich Scheme: Electric Bills Based on Income
   
   "Electric power customers typically pay more if they use more. Under a new law, customers of California's three largest private utilities will be charged a fixed fee based on their incomes, not just how much power they use. The chief motivation behind this scheme is to provide some relief to low-income customers who are being hammered by escalating electricity rates as the Golden State transitions from fossil fuels to wind and solar power."
   
   . . .
   
   "One further consideration: How would power companies keep track of the incomes of their customers? The utility companies want the state government to supply them with that information. But transferring and protecting such information would be a bureaucratic nightmare fraught with significant privacy concerns.
   
   As a final note, California's confiscatory tax rates are driving many high-income residents out of the state. This new income-based fixed electricity rates proposal will add to that impetus since it largely functions as just another tax aimed at already fed up high-income earners."
   - Reason.com
   
   Cnet.com has a more neutral article that says essentially the same thing as Reason.com: California Electricity Bills Will Soon Be Based on Income. Here's How It Might Work
   
   I stumbled across a blurb about this and had to take a look. I ended up just shaking my head.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      The argument that taxing the rich rarely works because they can easily relocate to more tax-friendly states is a common. But today we see many leaving California due to the high taxes, and costs of living.  High taxes on the wealthy have led to a "brain drain" and capital flight, which stats support.  The affluent individuals and businesses are relocating to areas with lower tax rates, land leaving behind a diminished tax base comprised mainly of the middle class and poor.
      
      Moreover, relying solely on the middle class and poor as a tax base can indeed strain government finances and end up quickly hindering the ability to fund essential services and social programs. These policies end up underscoring the importance of designing tax policies that balance revenue generation with economic growth, fairness, and sustainability.
      
      I believe this proposal is just another idealistic notion from the liberal camp, which, in reality, could exacerbate rather than solve the issue at hand.
      
      California already has enough problems. Do they really need more?
      https://calmatters.org/politics/capitol … %20bigger.

      replyreport
   2. 85

      tsmogposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      ha-ha All the math is over my head right now. Too much to digest. Living in San Diego County having electricity and gas supplied by SDG&E I will give attention to the math with billing tracking in an Excel spreadsheet later. In principle I appreciate the intent of assisting low and middle income family units, but at what and whose cost?
      
      Off, the cuff, the one thing of most importance is 'giving my income' data to a utility. No way!! When I am asked for income on surveys I decline to answer. Its not their business! 'Big Brother' and all that stuff.
      
      I am even hesitant on Facebook and these forums to give too much information as it is indexed on Google available for bots to scrape data from. The NSA and all that stuff.
      
      US National Security Agency buys web browsing data without warrant, letter shows by Reuters (Jan 26, 2024)
      https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybe … 024-01-26/

      replyreport
   3. 85

      tsmogposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      I looked at my billing and gave some thought to this proposal and am left with questions if it even benefits low and middle income family units. Or, I don't really understand what is proposed.
      
      Remember I am a SDG&E customer, so one of the big three utility companies in the article(s)
      
      First for electricity most are on the Time of Use (TSU) program. That means there is a:
      
      Off Peak billing rate for both Delivery and Generation
      Super Off Peak billing rate for both Delivery and Generation
      On Peak billing rate for both Delivery and Generation
      
      Note: Delivery billing rate is the same for all three peak categories. Generation varies between all three.
      
      Most are on what is called Community Choice Aggregate for Generation billing rates.
      
      CCA is "Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) is a program that allows cities, counties and other qualifying governmental entities available within the service areas of investor-owned utilities (IOUs), to purchase and/or generate electricity for their residents and businesses.
      
      What happens is they credit the billing by the utility for generation and then the customer is billed the CCA rates. As an example is I have approximately a 24% savings with that program.
      
      Then there are discounts and allowances
      
      ** CARE = "Low-income customers that are enrolled in the CARE program receive a 30-35 percent discount on their electric bill and a 20 percent discount on their natural gas bill.
      
      ** FERA = "The Family Electric Rate Assistance Program offers an 18% discount on your electricity bill if your household income slightly exceeds the CARE allowances. If you are a customer of Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, or Pacific Gas and Electric Company, you may qualify for the FERA program."
      
      ** The Medical Baseline Allowance Program helps customers save every month on their energy bill. What is the Medical Baseline Allowance Program? The Medical Baseline Allowance Program provides an additional amount of gas and electricity at the lowest rates for residential customers. It is not a discount or rebate
      
      ** The California Climate Credit is part of California’s efforts to fight climate change. This credit is from a state program that requires power plants, natural gas providers, and other large industries that emit greenhouse gases to buy carbon pollution permits. The credit on your bill is your share of the payments from the State’s program.
      (Note: That is not a month-to-month basis only receiving four times during the year)
      
      Some of those programs are applied to the gas utility.
      
      So, one of my questions is what happens to those with the new proposal?
      
      Will the flat rate proposed only wind up being the same as it is now?
      
      I will give it some more thought and do some more due diligence to understand.
      
      That is what I meant by the math is/was going over my head. I benefit from one or more of those programs.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         GA Andersonposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         Your consideration of the 'math', relative to benefits is a secondary one. The primary question is of the concept. Charitably put: Is demanding rich folks pay more for a product or service so that less rich folks can pay less a defensible concept?
         
         We accept that concept now via our tax code, but is extending that to individual products and services the same thing?
         
         I think the concept is so wrong that the details of whether one benefits or not shouldn't matter.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 85

            tsmogposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Thanks, for the reply offering food for thought. Nice!
            
            First, not defensibly, but, "Your consideration of the 'math', relative to benefits is a secondary one." may be for you sitting in the bleachers, but not for me on the playing field. I have questions.
            
            "I think the concept is so wrong that the details of whether one benefits or not shouldn't matter."
            
            Agreed in principle! Some could make the leap saying, " Democratic Socialism in disguise" (Think Nordic nations) while I reject thoughts of "communism".
            
            If I was an investor from afar, be that polytheist god or Mork from Ork, I would want to watch those Democratic Socialist nations at least another hundred years before making a change toward that economic/social philosophy.
            
            Capitalism has existed since the 16th century whereas Democratic Socialism has only been around since the end of the 19th century. Admittedly, they both have pluses and minuses and its good and evil, yet what is the end goal? Perplexing at this time, of which at a later time I will do some wandering and pondering.

            replyreport
         2. 95

            wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            "We accept that concept now via our tax code, but is extending that to individual products and services the same thing?"
            
            We do that now with taxes because we want more than we can afford, and greed keeps us from being happy paying our "fair share".  Instead we decide it is "fair" that those with more shall pay more for the same thing.
            
            Is it really such a stretch to extend the exact same thinking to cover more than just the privilege of living in the US, to include living costs as well?  Perhaps we will all be taking our completed tax forms into WalMart to buy a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk in a few years.  At least in California and a handful of other states, anyway.

            replyreport
2. 69

   abwilliamsposted 7 weeks ago

   More Government intrusion; spying on the people in order to report who will pay more for the same services! Nothing is sacred, not our privacy nor our Rights in pursuing our own interests without being targeted and penalized for it! So much for the American dream!

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Yes, all that too!  Don't you know they just know better?  That's why we are all just living the dream. LOL

      replyreport
3. 93

   Nathanvilleposted 7 weeks ago

   Wow – that is ‘one step too far’ in my opinion:  I’m quite speechless……
   
   Thanks for the link, I also found the story published in the Guardian:- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … -fees-2025
   
   In reading the articles; if I understand correctly, the main problem is the ‘massive subsidies’ given to people who install solar panels in California. 
   
   In the UK, the Conservative Government ended subsides on solar panels as from the 1st April 2019; so we don’t have that problem in the UK.  E.g. when I bought my solar panels in Nov 2021 I did so using my own money, and without any government support - And I'm glad I did because it's slashed our electricity bill considerably, especially during the summer months.
   
   But the idea of basing electricity bills on income is unthinkable to me.

   replyreport