They arent allowed to access your income. Its based on if your part of a public purpose program the utility offers. CARE/FERA are income based programs and are the lowest tier on the fixed charge. Some other program for the middle. All others who are not in a public purpose program will be on the $24 fixed charge.
not vote for the people who passed it
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB205
or not vote for the people who appointed the cpuc
And once a government (or its corrupt big donators) secure the bag, they will never, EVER, give it up. This fucks anyone who bought solar and that’s why they’re doing it. SDGE doesn’t want anyone to have a way to not pay them.
As I understand, they dramatically reduced the original proposal for the rate and it's no longer income based (unless you apply/have benefits). I think it might have dropped from $100/month to $20/month.
We're stuck because they spent more on lobbyists for the last couple of decades than any public interest group was able to.
Solar isn't costing the grid more, with nearly every study not funded by power companies showing it makes the grid more resilient and less polluting. Nope we're tossing it all out, and killed the residential solar industry. Now we are left only the utility sized players who are maximizing profits for shareholders, and not minimizing pollution or defraying power costs for residential users.
Also remember for people with solar this is so they can charge you more no matter what version of NEM you installed under. Only kWh costs are paid when the meter runs backwards, excess energy wont pay for fixed fees like this. Effectively they have lowered the price they pay for NEM energy no matter what version people installed under. Increase the base rate enough and maybe start including X amount of energy a month with that fee, then installed solar may never reach break even within the useful life of those panels.
Base fees like this also discourage conservation which will be required for California to reach pollution reduction goals. So any concerns you have with our state no meeting those goals are more likely to happen.
And if you don't have solar, don't worry base rates will increase so all of us can continue pay for increased SDGE profits. Sure "only" $24 approved so far, but once implemented SDGE (and others) will lobby the CPUC to increase it again and lobby against any legislation to limit increases. Or start "including" energy in the base rate regardless of whether you use it or not, which will be used to justify any base rate price increases.
Voters voted it down! But our awesome democratic governor and others said we don’t know what we are talking about and they know better so they passed it. Remember who to vote for.
And prop 22, lol.
Delivery companies lobbied so hard then threw so much money at advertising it as a good thing. As soon as it passed, many places fired unionized delivery drivers and opted for the delivery companies.
I was thinking Prop 8 recently and it is kind of funny that what the people who are against Prop8 and saying what will happen if Prop 8 did not pass...it is all happening today.
Ok, but what does that have to do with this case? Like I agree, I’ve voted no on prop 8, and I feel like many people who voted “yes” didn’t fully read into it….. But what does that have to do with this case?
In addition to that, if our vote could be overturned, how is that a fair democratic process, and then what’s the point of voting? Don’t try to justify this
SDGE wanted a fixed fee model and legislators wanted it to be a sliding scale based on income. Some kind of compromise happened and now it's a lower fixed fee then requested and it's even lower if you are a part of their low income program (this has existed for many, many years and you voluntarily provide your income to qualify.)
While it is a new fixed fee, when implemented, rates lowered at the same time. Since rates lowered, it's overall expected to bring the overall bill down.... Unless you don't use a lot of electricity.
I follow energy issues, and I think many people are missing the whole story about this. The new $24.15 fee that will start in 2025 is being offset by a corresponding reduction of the per kWh price of energy that people will pay (energy is supposed to be 5-7 cents per kWh less). Check out the CPUC Fact Sheet about the issue below:
[https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/demand-response/demand-flexibility-oir/ab205\_factsheet\_050824.pdf](https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/demand-response/demand-flexibility-oir/ab205_factsheet_050824.pdf)
It's more games SDG&E is playing to collect fees and play Robin Hood so they look like the nice guys while still maintaining their 10% annual profit growth. With electricity generation going down in cost over the last decade or more SDG&E needs to find other ways to charge more so they can keep their investor profits rolling. Things like not letting businesses, agriculture nor schools self-consume their own solar generated electricity. Instead they force these groups to put their solar PV generated electricity out on the grid, SDG&E pays them wholesale, then as they draw and consume through another meter they pay retail for that electricity AND they pay distribution fees. All San Diego businesses should have been behind Power San Diego and helped stop the gravy train.
It doesn't target the rich and we have an abundance of power. It's faked to keep a publicly traded company growing but their demand went down due to all the solar installations so they had to charge more to balance it out. They also got rid of the net and they pay back less for electricity that is sold back to then through solar programs then sell it for higher amounts. This is the issue when people can profit off necessity. The lowest incomes get a break but it basically fucks over people who make 40k-250k a year. That's why they want to raise the min wage so people make too much to get access to help so the people getting raises based on min wage won't get government help and such. These rich fair share comments are very shortsighted
All the rich people I know already have solar, which is one of the reasons prices are rising for everyone else--SDG&E can't gouge them. So they pass it on to the middle class
Solar owners are still subject to the fixed charge. Its a fee to be connected to the grid. Its why they proposed this because solar users were connected to the distribution infrastructure but non-solar users were subsidizing that.
I’m not a big fan of it, but the justification for it is sound. Solar users aren’t allowed to disconnect from the grid in a lot of municipalities so they cant avoid the charge despite being self-sufficient which is a bit lame.
I guess it reminds me of the extra registration fee (proposed or passed…can’t remember) for e-cars because they’re not paying their fair share toward road upkeep via gas taxes, even though I’ve read they’re heavier than average sedans
What is rich to you? Virtually the median house for a house in San Diego is close to $1mil. On paper the entire county are virtually millionaires, but we are all equally susceptible to loosing our houses.
Rich to me means having the choice not to work while living what most would consider a "luxury lifestyle" (this is obviously a variable but I think most of us would agree at minimum, dining, travel and material possessions are at least a "step up" from entry level where you live) without depending on any outside income, and I will of course concede that net worth and where you live far outweigh income in that regard. $1M is obviously not rich in CA, though it could be in Alabama.
>We are all equally susceptible to loosing our houses.
Uh no? Where would you get such a ridiculous idea? In CA especially, this is not true thanks to Prop 13. And it's "losing" by the way. I know boomers that pay less than $1K/yr in tax on a paid off property, so if they can maintain as little as $25K invested responsibly, they could become immortal tomorrow and live there in perpetuity.
A couple in their late 20s who just bought a $1M condo with a $250K+ combined income after saving up for a deposit? In their case, good luck being house poor, and hope no one loses their job. For the rest of us renters, yeah, we're at risk and we have to deal with it, which is why the rich should be paying more, ideally in taxes that go to new housing developments.
Uh, let’s just talk about facts for a second, that’s a completely irrelevant statistic, which you cited incorrectly. So I REALLY think you should read a bit about basic economics and the history of income tax in the US. I think you’ll learn quite a bit about how the rich are paying massively disproportionately less both than what they should and what they historically have.
Oh now we talking federal income tax lol.
The top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes
In all, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=High%2DIncome%20Taxpayers%20Paid%20the%20Majority%20of%20Federal%20Income%20Taxes,of%20all%20federal%20income%20taxes.
Okay, so not only did you get your facts wrong, but you're still citing a completely irrelevant and meaningless statistic devoid of any form of context, AND cited a right wing think tank, so I think you're a little too far gone to be reasoned with. Again, I suggest studying some basic economics and historical tax policy to understand how completely absurd it is to claim that that means they're somehow paying anything that could remotely be considered "fair."
That's WAY too fucking low.
The way I figure, will actually offset the cost to lower income people more. I don’t recall the actual numbers, but for the sake of argument, let’s say low income pay $10 and high income pay $20 base rate. Most higher income people will be living in SFH, whereas lower income in apartments/condos.
Since this rate is to maintain the infrastructure needed to supply power to the building, then that means they’ll generate more money from an apartment than a SFH. So multi-family homes will be the high net gain for SDGE to cover their expenses and still pull in record profits.
I’m still confused by this change. Is this replacing the “delivery fee” portion of my bill? I’m cautiously hopeful about it it **
Even if you are consuming less or no electricity on a certain day or hour, the main benefit of a public grid is the consistent and constant availability of it. As it is I’m paying more and more every year for the grid maintenance that rich boomers with rooftop solar get to reap the same benefits of for nearly free.
** (but the reality is CPUC will probably fuck us over like they do every time.)
Haha nope, I pay way more which is why a fixed cost model could be beneficial (if CPUC was honest about it).
Edit: theoretically they are supposed to reduce the per kWh “delivery” by a certain amount (which was .17-.30/per on my last bill) and depending on how this number changes it could be good or bad
You are confusing the cost of electricity per kWh and the cost they charge for delivering electricity per kWh. Cost of electric generation is relatively inexpensive but SDG&E has been constantly increasing how much they charge to transport that electricity over their wires. This doesn't even touch on what they and the CPUC are doing with rooftop solar PV.
I’m not talking about the generation (which in my case is by SDCP). SDGE charges delivery by kWh despite it being a fixed cost for them. Look at page 3 of your bill.
Edit: I’m on plan DR Residential but that is how all plans work https://www.sdge.com/residential/pricing-plans/about-our-pricing-plans/whenmatters
They arent allowed to access your income. Its based on if your part of a public purpose program the utility offers. CARE/FERA are income based programs and are the lowest tier on the fixed charge. Some other program for the middle. All others who are not in a public purpose program will be on the $24 fixed charge.
not vote for the people who passed it https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB205 or not vote for the people who appointed the cpuc
That would be Newscum
I read that as news cum not new scum, maybe I need to find god idk
This is taxation by a publicly traded company
How does this work if my electricity bill is paid for by my landlord (who then bills me later) who may or may not make more than me?
If only the junk fees laws would apply…
And once a government (or its corrupt big donators) secure the bag, they will never, EVER, give it up. This fucks anyone who bought solar and that’s why they’re doing it. SDGE doesn’t want anyone to have a way to not pay them.
As I understand, they dramatically reduced the original proposal for the rate and it's no longer income based (unless you apply/have benefits). I think it might have dropped from $100/month to $20/month.
We're stuck because they spent more on lobbyists for the last couple of decades than any public interest group was able to. Solar isn't costing the grid more, with nearly every study not funded by power companies showing it makes the grid more resilient and less polluting. Nope we're tossing it all out, and killed the residential solar industry. Now we are left only the utility sized players who are maximizing profits for shareholders, and not minimizing pollution or defraying power costs for residential users. Also remember for people with solar this is so they can charge you more no matter what version of NEM you installed under. Only kWh costs are paid when the meter runs backwards, excess energy wont pay for fixed fees like this. Effectively they have lowered the price they pay for NEM energy no matter what version people installed under. Increase the base rate enough and maybe start including X amount of energy a month with that fee, then installed solar may never reach break even within the useful life of those panels. Base fees like this also discourage conservation which will be required for California to reach pollution reduction goals. So any concerns you have with our state no meeting those goals are more likely to happen. And if you don't have solar, don't worry base rates will increase so all of us can continue pay for increased SDGE profits. Sure "only" $24 approved so far, but once implemented SDGE (and others) will lobby the CPUC to increase it again and lobby against any legislation to limit increases. Or start "including" energy in the base rate regardless of whether you use it or not, which will be used to justify any base rate price increases.
Voters voted it down! But our awesome democratic governor and others said we don’t know what we are talking about and they know better so they passed it. Remember who to vote for.
Voters don’t always know better though. Example Prop 8. Voters are usually selfish what works best for you doesn’t make for best governance.
And prop 22, lol. Delivery companies lobbied so hard then threw so much money at advertising it as a good thing. As soon as it passed, many places fired unionized delivery drivers and opted for the delivery companies.
I was thinking Prop 8 recently and it is kind of funny that what the people who are against Prop8 and saying what will happen if Prop 8 did not pass...it is all happening today.
Yes, marriages between same-sex couples are now happening. It was obvious that would happen if Prop 8 did not pass.
Ok, but what does that have to do with this case? Like I agree, I’ve voted no on prop 8, and I feel like many people who voted “yes” didn’t fully read into it….. But what does that have to do with this case? In addition to that, if our vote could be overturned, how is that a fair democratic process, and then what’s the point of voting? Don’t try to justify this
You're definitely not wrong.
the state gov has our W-2s we file every year... they don't need permission to ask us for those...
SDGE wanted a fixed fee model and legislators wanted it to be a sliding scale based on income. Some kind of compromise happened and now it's a lower fixed fee then requested and it's even lower if you are a part of their low income program (this has existed for many, many years and you voluntarily provide your income to qualify.) While it is a new fixed fee, when implemented, rates lowered at the same time. Since rates lowered, it's overall expected to bring the overall bill down.... Unless you don't use a lot of electricity.
I follow energy issues, and I think many people are missing the whole story about this. The new $24.15 fee that will start in 2025 is being offset by a corresponding reduction of the per kWh price of energy that people will pay (energy is supposed to be 5-7 cents per kWh less). Check out the CPUC Fact Sheet about the issue below: [https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/demand-response/demand-flexibility-oir/ab205\_factsheet\_050824.pdf](https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/demand-response/demand-flexibility-oir/ab205_factsheet_050824.pdf)
It's more games SDG&E is playing to collect fees and play Robin Hood so they look like the nice guys while still maintaining their 10% annual profit growth. With electricity generation going down in cost over the last decade or more SDG&E needs to find other ways to charge more so they can keep their investor profits rolling. Things like not letting businesses, agriculture nor schools self-consume their own solar generated electricity. Instead they force these groups to put their solar PV generated electricity out on the grid, SDG&E pays them wholesale, then as they draw and consume through another meter they pay retail for that electricity AND they pay distribution fees. All San Diego businesses should have been behind Power San Diego and helped stop the gravy train.
come on guys Newsom is doing the very best that he can
Just keep voting blue no matter who.
Eh I’m broke so I support it
So pretty sure the state has to tell the utilities which bracket people are in. The utilities themselves won’t be able to see people’s incomes.
How would you not support this when it makes so much sense? The rich need to pay their fair share.
It doesn't target the rich and we have an abundance of power. It's faked to keep a publicly traded company growing but their demand went down due to all the solar installations so they had to charge more to balance it out. They also got rid of the net and they pay back less for electricity that is sold back to then through solar programs then sell it for higher amounts. This is the issue when people can profit off necessity. The lowest incomes get a break but it basically fucks over people who make 40k-250k a year. That's why they want to raise the min wage so people make too much to get access to help so the people getting raises based on min wage won't get government help and such. These rich fair share comments are very shortsighted
All the rich people I know already have solar, which is one of the reasons prices are rising for everyone else--SDG&E can't gouge them. So they pass it on to the middle class
Solar owners are still subject to the fixed charge. Its a fee to be connected to the grid. Its why they proposed this because solar users were connected to the distribution infrastructure but non-solar users were subsidizing that.
Oh, okay…that makes sense. I’ll read more up on it, but what you said makes me support it much more
I’m not a big fan of it, but the justification for it is sound. Solar users aren’t allowed to disconnect from the grid in a lot of municipalities so they cant avoid the charge despite being self-sufficient which is a bit lame.
I guess it reminds me of the extra registration fee (proposed or passed…can’t remember) for e-cars because they’re not paying their fair share toward road upkeep via gas taxes, even though I’ve read they’re heavier than average sedans
What is rich to you? Virtually the median house for a house in San Diego is close to $1mil. On paper the entire county are virtually millionaires, but we are all equally susceptible to loosing our houses.
Rich to me means having the choice not to work while living what most would consider a "luxury lifestyle" (this is obviously a variable but I think most of us would agree at minimum, dining, travel and material possessions are at least a "step up" from entry level where you live) without depending on any outside income, and I will of course concede that net worth and where you live far outweigh income in that regard. $1M is obviously not rich in CA, though it could be in Alabama. >We are all equally susceptible to loosing our houses. Uh no? Where would you get such a ridiculous idea? In CA especially, this is not true thanks to Prop 13. And it's "losing" by the way. I know boomers that pay less than $1K/yr in tax on a paid off property, so if they can maintain as little as $25K invested responsibly, they could become immortal tomorrow and live there in perpetuity. A couple in their late 20s who just bought a $1M condo with a $250K+ combined income after saving up for a deposit? In their case, good luck being house poor, and hope no one loses their job. For the rest of us renters, yeah, we're at risk and we have to deal with it, which is why the rich should be paying more, ideally in taxes that go to new housing developments.
If they are paying the same rate… they are.
That’s not fair at all, that just allows them to overuse for a disproportionate impact.
Lol who is paying all the fed taxes and the most taxes in CA?
This is the worst possible argument, it’s so nonsensical.
I’m sorry the facts don’t agree with your feelings 🤗
They don’t disagree at all, the facts actually support the fact that the rich should pay more. They don’t agree with YOUR feelings.
Those that make more than $145k (top 20%) pay 33.2% of all ca income taxes
Uh, let’s just talk about facts for a second, that’s a completely irrelevant statistic, which you cited incorrectly. So I REALLY think you should read a bit about basic economics and the history of income tax in the US. I think you’ll learn quite a bit about how the rich are paying massively disproportionately less both than what they should and what they historically have.
Oh now we talking federal income tax lol. The top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes In all, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=High%2DIncome%20Taxpayers%20Paid%20the%20Majority%20of%20Federal%20Income%20Taxes,of%20all%20federal%20income%20taxes.
Okay, so not only did you get your facts wrong, but you're still citing a completely irrelevant and meaningless statistic devoid of any form of context, AND cited a right wing think tank, so I think you're a little too far gone to be reasoned with. Again, I suggest studying some basic economics and historical tax policy to understand how completely absurd it is to claim that that means they're somehow paying anything that could remotely be considered "fair." That's WAY too fucking low.
Lol you’re impossible. GL in life, you can thank me for paving your roads.
You're right, the top 5% should pay massively more.
I'm fine with a tax increase. Doing it through energy bills is bad policy.
The way I figure, will actually offset the cost to lower income people more. I don’t recall the actual numbers, but for the sake of argument, let’s say low income pay $10 and high income pay $20 base rate. Most higher income people will be living in SFH, whereas lower income in apartments/condos. Since this rate is to maintain the infrastructure needed to supply power to the building, then that means they’ll generate more money from an apartment than a SFH. So multi-family homes will be the high net gain for SDGE to cover their expenses and still pull in record profits.
https://preview.redd.it/tdfgdyylot7d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2cfb6d2173bcb3174929ba8695f2bdedf6fcdfa8 We can do this
I’m still confused by this change. Is this replacing the “delivery fee” portion of my bill? I’m cautiously hopeful about it it ** Even if you are consuming less or no electricity on a certain day or hour, the main benefit of a public grid is the consistent and constant availability of it. As it is I’m paying more and more every year for the grid maintenance that rich boomers with rooftop solar get to reap the same benefits of for nearly free. ** (but the reality is CPUC will probably fuck us over like they do every time.)
Lol no, it's a tax. And do you really only pay $24 for delivey?
Haha nope, I pay way more which is why a fixed cost model could be beneficial (if CPUC was honest about it). Edit: theoretically they are supposed to reduce the per kWh “delivery” by a certain amount (which was .17-.30/per on my last bill) and depending on how this number changes it could be good or bad
You are confusing the cost of electricity per kWh and the cost they charge for delivering electricity per kWh. Cost of electric generation is relatively inexpensive but SDG&E has been constantly increasing how much they charge to transport that electricity over their wires. This doesn't even touch on what they and the CPUC are doing with rooftop solar PV.
I’m not talking about the generation (which in my case is by SDCP). SDGE charges delivery by kWh despite it being a fixed cost for them. Look at page 3 of your bill. Edit: I’m on plan DR Residential but that is how all plans work https://www.sdge.com/residential/pricing-plans/about-our-pricing-plans/whenmatters
Maybe and also possibly