California’s Latest Hustle: Utility Bills Based on Ratepayers' Income \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

California’s Latest Hustle: Utility Bills Based on Ratepayers' Income mises.org/mises-wire/californias-latest-hustle-utility-bills-based-ratepayers-income

380 sats \ 9 comments \ @Undisciplined 25 Mar econ

By Jane L. Johnson

California’s legislature wants to combine the idea of two-part price discrimination with a soak-the-rich mentality in charging for utilities. What possibly could go wrong?

view all related items

210 sats \ 4 replies \ @kepford 26 Mar

I thought this story sounded old.

In 2022 the supermajority Democrat state legislature passed and the governor signed Assembly Bill 205 (AB 205), which ordered the California Public Utilities Commission to authorize a “fixed charge” on residential electric bills by July 2024.

And it isn't going into affect yet. Being changed because... politicians can't be bothered to do the one thing they claim makes them useful. Legislating. Being devoted to educating themselves on the important decisions. Us plebs don't have the time to consider these things. We need representatives devoted to this task debating and deciding what to do. So the story goes that you are programmed with in the government schools.

Because of these imponderables and because the California Public Utilities Commission has not approved any of several possible methodologies to implement AB 205, one legislator has now introduced Assembly Bill 1999 to repeal the fixed-charge mandate. Another legislator who voted for AB 205 now confesses that the legislation was long and confusing and was called up for a vote very shortly after its text was available to read.

Yet another gem.

The legislation also required the utilities to reduce their rates for electricity usage in order to assist low-income customers as electricity prices continue to rise.

In case you don't know California really has a HIGHLY state controlled utility system that has had price fixing as well as government oversight for many years. In response largely to the Enron scandal. I believe it is this price fixing along with restrictions on power production requiring the importing of power from other states that is responsible for the ridiculous rates and crumbling infra that led to many wild fires. Its really a mess but since these are private companies (in name at least) then they are the easy scapegoats.

These companies suck, don't get me wrong. But they would suck less if they were allowed to build power plants, have competition, and live under a free market. Many would fold and be bought out by better managers of power services. I could go on but you get the point. Nothing new here. Same nonsense. New bills.

33 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Mar

I also vaguely recalled reading about this before. I know there's also some stupid controversy there about whether homeowners with solar panels should be allowed to sell their power back onto the grid. Apparently, that's unfair to people without rooftop solar, or something.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 26 Mar

That may be but I haven't heard that angle. I think what you are talking about is NEM (Net Energy Metering). A new agreement is now in place called NEM 3.0. The previous agreement which was designed to encourage solar installations was retired. Under the 2.0 the power company was required to buy back excess power sent back to the grid at a reduced rate. Now they no longer have to do this. This results in solar owners receiving much less ROI for their production. Basically as I understand it, the grids were being over powered with energy produced by panels during daylight hours and then production drops off a cliff when the sun goes down. This also is the time when peak usage happens. Honestly, it sounds like a tough spot to be in as an engineer.

33 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Mar

Isn't that what batteries are for?

I think this is the issue I was referring to, but whoever I heard arguing against it was taking a bizarre egalitarian stance. It was something about how the solar production wasn't reducing electricity costs for anyone other than the solar producers. Talk about politics of envy.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 26 Mar

No kidding. The economics of home batteries are tough unless you have an EV. Many people are making dumb economic decisions with this stuff though because they don't use spreadsheets. Not to mention the risk of fire.

I haven't heard the argument you mentioned. I have only heard it was those greedy utilities. Even though they are overseen by state boards. For all the talk of renewable goals they disincentivized new solar installations. The payoff period for a system is now much longer. One of many reasons why I do not take these people seriously.

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @grayruby 25 Mar

Toronto says hold my beer. https://www.blogto.com/city/2024/03/toronto-stormwater-charge/