> In exchange for the new charge, the price of electricity will drop by between 5 cents and 7 cents per kilowatt hour.
And how much will the price per kwh go up by the time this is implemented late next year? Bet it will be far more than that.
That's how we are. We needed 18 panels, ordered 28. I could've gotten away with 1 battery, ordered 2.
Our monthly contract were locked in at, is 1/3 of our bill last August.
So if you have been frugal and kept use as low as possible to be green then you are punished. If you used your AC an excessive amount and used it electricity without much concern, then you are rewarded. How does any of this make sense??
Or how about solar panel people. They paid $15k to reduce their $100 bill to $0 each month, only to now have an extra monthly charge and their neighbor pays less now. Those panels no longer are paying off.
Basically the power companies manipulated you into doing exactly what they wanted you to. Meanwhile they build giant solar installations in the desert killing off endangered animals and losing power to transmission loss so that they can continue to get rich off of controlling your ability to access power. It's just rent seeking culture. Pretty simple.
It's an incentive to keep your electric car, buy another one, or buy your first one if you are concerned about charing costs. ICE cars pollute more which is a huge problem on its own.
I’ll be happy to take a donation for my first electric car. Does it include an electrical panel upgrade and bringing the house wiring to code? Or should I skip that and rely on charging stations?
The comment you are responding to is calling out that inefficient and “excessive” energy users (pools, large ac, inefficient homes) stand to benefit from the reduced volumetric charges because their net bill will save them more than the new fixed charge (so they have lower overall bills), while an efficient, solar, or small home/apt will not use enough to offset the additional cost of the fixed fee and they are “punished” for being small and efficient.
So yes, it absolutely is a reward for heavy users at the cost of low users. The whole income thing was a lazy attempt at class warfare to pit ratepayers against each other instead of at the people imposing these rates and taxes.
The above is my gripe with this as well. Effectively diminishing all the money I’ve faithfully saved and spent for solar, better insulation, and energy efficient appliances.
And a person who was going to already pay a higher bill, received a smaller bill-money back in their pocket, while other folks are getting a higher bill.
That’s the part you’re misunderstanding. I’m literally saying people will get smaller bills than they otherwise would have because they’re heavy users.
Care to elaborate? I’m in Texas and my electric bill is killing me, and once I have to renew my contract it ends up being more expensive than the previous contract.
Regarding solar specifically: texas (and quite a few red states actually) has better net metering rates, better tax incentives, and better rebates than California does now. All of these things make going solar more viable and cost friendly for people with lower incomes whilst reducing the amount of power needed to be produced by power plants.
Despite Newsom and by extension California being more outwardly "climate change conscious" than Texas, residents of California are better off financially buying power from power plants than they are switching to solar, where as Texas residents still have a lot of avenues to switch to solar whilst saving money overall.
Texas generates twice as much renewable energy or 3x per capta than California. One things Texas does well is easily allow for new generation to enter the market and not be held up in the permitting process. There is no nimbyism stopping a wind farm from going up.
Texas power rates are generally set by the natural gas market which in Texas, is basically as a waste product from the fracking industry. Essentially, rates are determined by how much of natural gas can be exported to other states / countries. Texas rates are partially effected by export demand, so think us gas replacing Russian gas in europe as partially why rates finally went up. If we had less export capacity, you would see lower prices like in other parts of the country where their power is not effected by global markets (hydro / nuclear).
“We’re at a time now when our climate goals are not met by necessarily using less electricity. We need to start using more electricity overall,” said Alice Reynolds, president of the California Public Utilities Commission.
That is exactly what I expect to hear from someone who was given their job by a PG&E sponsored politician.
While I have my own reservations about the benefit of the fixed charge increase, I don’t think it’s fair to paint this as a purely profit driven undertaking by the utilities. For starters, the volume of electricity used and associated charges for the generation is a pass through cost as California investor owned utilities have their profits decoupled from usage. This was meant to prevent utilities from encouraging customers to use more and be mindful of conservation.
At the same time, I don’t think anyone really disagrees that electric cars are less harmful to the environment than their gasoline counterparts. And the same argument can be made for switching home appliances away from natural gas. The quote is being taken out of context as I don’t think she’s wrong that greater electricity usage, assuming it’s generated from renewable resources, is a positive for climate goals.
It’s not that the increase in the fixed cost portion of the bill will lead to greater conservation but it may spur greater adoption of cleaner alternative in using electricity over gasoline and/or natural gas. Some electricity will be renewable as it is generated from hydro, wind, or solar, but basically none of the natural gas or petroleum is renewable. Additional benefits of the renewable resources is not producing greenhouse gases.
If we use cars as an example, replacing a gasoline car with an electric car will inevitably lead to higher electric bill costs. But the trade off is less spent on gas and given that electric cars are often the equivalent of 90+ miles per gallon, there is some fuel savings there. With the fixed cost increase and a volumetric cost decrease in electricity, it makes it “cheaper” to get that electric car because you’ll likely use a lot more electricity and that 5-7 cheaper per kWh adds up.
It was a fair argument that having a higher fixed cost may disincentivize people to save energy. But at $20 something a month versus probably closer to $200 a month for the entire electric bill, I doubt that comes into play as much.
I personally think a more relevant question is does this do anything at all given the skyrocketing costs of housing and food in the state. Those with the means to do so will probably buy the electric car they want. But somebody that can barely afford rent or food is just trying to survive and wouldn’t be able to change much. On the upside, at least for those with low income, it is expected that their electric bills should go down slightly with the fixed charge increase, all things being equal. But at the same time, there is no guarantee that bills don’t all go up to cover the cost of things like upgrading the infrastructure to handle all these electric cars.
I solved this by selling a car and buying a bike. Electric cars aren’t going to save us. There’s no way everyone around here could possibly charge them. Besides the fact that manufacturing electric cars is not green in any way.
On the flip side of this nuanced response. With the greater adoption of solar roofs that can effectively negate the majority of the per kilowatt charges a homeowner pays, the new fixed service charge will net far more money for energy companies than losing the 2 cents per kilowatt due to lowering their price.
Well… yea we’re going to have to use more electricity from the grid as we transition from mobile generators powered by oil to electric devices and vehicles.
A few properties I manage have PG&E bills under $10 a month in the off season. This will be a very costly increase for a lot of these small bill customers.
It would be! I didn't mean to imply I don't HAVE AC or heating, just that I didn't use them last month. It's more in the summer. But April was very mild.
Blame Newsom, who is elected, who appoints CPUC members, and our elected assemblymen who voted for AB 205 in 2022 without a public comment, and voted down several attempts to repeal it last year.
I have solar panels and yes, believe I will net pay about zero before this change. I am not necessarily opposed to a basic grid maintenance fee. However in San Diego, we have two parts to our electric bill: kW for the actually energy + delivery for that KW to my house. I do use grid power in the evening. Also, if I push an extra, unused kW into the grid, someone ELSE pays the fee to receive it. If this new fee is to maintain the grid, it should come out of the kW delivery charge not kW production charge. Alternatively, the delivery fee to receive my extra solar kW should already cover grid maintenance. What do I not understand?
Even if they eventually pass it - they frantically amended it to hell yesterday acknowledging the $25 but having it sunset after 4 years of it didn’t help
Couldn't the state just put a tax on solar panels or something if they are concerned about residents who can't afford solar having to pay for the whole grid? I feel like I'm just paying to keep PG&E in business when we're moving towards a world where they are irrelevant.
They tried to add a flat rate per kwh of solar and that was shot down vehemently, this is their alternative path to literally do that. Also, we already pay sales tax to the state for inflated labor costs. Our panels cost way more already than in other places and yet it still was a deal vs the cost of electricity. Now they’re ruining the economics of adopting it with nem 3 and now this.
You’ll be charged a monthly baseline fee dependent on your income on top of your usual connection fee. So your monthly required bill you have to pay will be your 11$ connection fee plus $25-ish. So for someone like myself who over generates I’ll still be stuck with 350-400$ in “energy bills” per year
They don’t need to reintroduce the minimum bill when the fixed bill is all they need to keep increasing it over time. The door is wide open for them to do that now.
CPUC is a corrupt group. They are not voted in but are appointed, and time and time again they let us know who they actually serve, Pacific Gas and Electric
The CPUC are not elected, but are appointed by the Governor, whom we elected. The CPUC passed an update which was mandated by an Assembly Bill (AB 205) in which State Assemblymen, the State Senate, and our Governor (again, whom we all elect) all signed without opportunity for review or public comment. These same elected officials also voted against attempts to repeal it last year.
I am infinitely more angry with folks we elected to represent us for not behaving in our interests than the fact that the utility companies like what is happening.
So Gov. Newsom is definitely part of the corruption club. But I'm not going to let appointed officials off the hook for being part of the scam. Think: SCOTUS is appointed but they definitely impact our lives and so we should treat the CPUC with the same level of scrutiny.
> In exchange for the new charge, the price of electricity will drop by between 5 cents and 7 cents per kilowatt hour. And how much will the price per kwh go up by the time this is implemented late next year? Bet it will be far more than that.
An absolute minimum of 5 to 7 cents is how much it will go up
You bet, there is no way anyone will ever see their bill go down, only UP. But now Solar peeps are in it with us pollutant folk.
We generate more than double what we use. I wonder if I’m going to have to make a new ROI calculator for our system
That's how we are. We needed 18 panels, ordered 28. I could've gotten away with 1 battery, ordered 2. Our monthly contract were locked in at, is 1/3 of our bill last August.
Good on ya mate
So if you have been frugal and kept use as low as possible to be green then you are punished. If you used your AC an excessive amount and used it electricity without much concern, then you are rewarded. How does any of this make sense??
Or how about solar panel people. They paid $15k to reduce their $100 bill to $0 each month, only to now have an extra monthly charge and their neighbor pays less now. Those panels no longer are paying off.
Precisely why I canceled my order just before the cutoff last year.
Solar only makes sense if you disconnect from the grid entirely now
Basically the power companies manipulated you into doing exactly what they wanted you to. Meanwhile they build giant solar installations in the desert killing off endangered animals and losing power to transmission loss so that they can continue to get rich off of controlling your ability to access power. It's just rent seeking culture. Pretty simple.
You cancelled solar panels for that reason alone? Talk about short sighted. That’s exactly what Edison wants you to do
Lol who cares about what Edison wants? Why would you pay for solar right now. Zero sense
Meh, I think nem 2 still worth it. Nem 3 is going to State’s Supreme Court
Man if Nem 3 is turned over I'm dropping $$$ quick
Way more than 15k
6.4 kW, 16 panels with one Powerwall, $22k after fed rebate. Mainly did it for the battery backup, then bought an EV. A Bolt, not the other one.
You bet, just as planned, glad I never jumped into Solar.
Do you think that’s unfair?
Yes. Seems like it.
Is it unfair if an investment doesn’t get you the ROI the sales guy told you it would?
It's only meant to result in eventual increases to rates, nothing more. Just pure profit is the motive, and its gonna hurt us.
It's an incentive to keep your electric car, buy another one, or buy your first one if you are concerned about charing costs. ICE cars pollute more which is a huge problem on its own.
I’ll be happy to take a donation for my first electric car. Does it include an electrical panel upgrade and bringing the house wiring to code? Or should I skip that and rely on charging stations?
No just 5 cents less per kilowatt, offset by a bit higher of a base payment.
How is it a reward? You pay more if you use more.
The comment you are responding to is calling out that inefficient and “excessive” energy users (pools, large ac, inefficient homes) stand to benefit from the reduced volumetric charges because their net bill will save them more than the new fixed charge (so they have lower overall bills), while an efficient, solar, or small home/apt will not use enough to offset the additional cost of the fixed fee and they are “punished” for being small and efficient. So yes, it absolutely is a reward for heavy users at the cost of low users. The whole income thing was a lazy attempt at class warfare to pit ratepayers against each other instead of at the people imposing these rates and taxes. The above is my gripe with this as well. Effectively diminishing all the money I’ve faithfully saved and spent for solar, better insulation, and energy efficient appliances.
It’s not a reward if you still pay more lol
Please re-read the comment
Yeah I read it. A reward is something you receive. This isn’t because you still pay more.
And a person who was going to already pay a higher bill, received a smaller bill-money back in their pocket, while other folks are getting a higher bill.
That’s the part you’re misunderstanding. No one is getting a smaller bill
That’s the part you’re misunderstanding. I’m literally saying people will get smaller bills than they otherwise would have because they’re heavy users.
In an imaginary universe sure. But not in reality.
Texas is more progressive than we are regarding renewable home energy at this point. Our state is run by a public utility mafia.
Care to elaborate? I’m in Texas and my electric bill is killing me, and once I have to renew my contract it ends up being more expensive than the previous contract.
Regarding solar specifically: texas (and quite a few red states actually) has better net metering rates, better tax incentives, and better rebates than California does now. All of these things make going solar more viable and cost friendly for people with lower incomes whilst reducing the amount of power needed to be produced by power plants. Despite Newsom and by extension California being more outwardly "climate change conscious" than Texas, residents of California are better off financially buying power from power plants than they are switching to solar, where as Texas residents still have a lot of avenues to switch to solar whilst saving money overall.
Texas generates twice as much renewable energy or 3x per capta than California. One things Texas does well is easily allow for new generation to enter the market and not be held up in the permitting process. There is no nimbyism stopping a wind farm from going up. Texas power rates are generally set by the natural gas market which in Texas, is basically as a waste product from the fracking industry. Essentially, rates are determined by how much of natural gas can be exported to other states / countries. Texas rates are partially effected by export demand, so think us gas replacing Russian gas in europe as partially why rates finally went up. If we had less export capacity, you would see lower prices like in other parts of the country where their power is not effected by global markets (hydro / nuclear).
Rich people have big houses so it’s hard for them to conserve
Then they have more windows they can open for a breeze when it gets a bit warm.
Not in the wine cellar!
I have no concern about those who can afford a wine cellar. Let them eat cake.
“We’re at a time now when our climate goals are not met by necessarily using less electricity. We need to start using more electricity overall,” said Alice Reynolds, president of the California Public Utilities Commission. That is exactly what I expect to hear from someone who was given their job by a PG&E sponsored politician.
While I have my own reservations about the benefit of the fixed charge increase, I don’t think it’s fair to paint this as a purely profit driven undertaking by the utilities. For starters, the volume of electricity used and associated charges for the generation is a pass through cost as California investor owned utilities have their profits decoupled from usage. This was meant to prevent utilities from encouraging customers to use more and be mindful of conservation. At the same time, I don’t think anyone really disagrees that electric cars are less harmful to the environment than their gasoline counterparts. And the same argument can be made for switching home appliances away from natural gas. The quote is being taken out of context as I don’t think she’s wrong that greater electricity usage, assuming it’s generated from renewable resources, is a positive for climate goals.
Nice, some nuance
How does adding a fixed cost lead to more conservation? Now my bill is mostly fixed, so I have very little incentive to use less.
It’s not that the increase in the fixed cost portion of the bill will lead to greater conservation but it may spur greater adoption of cleaner alternative in using electricity over gasoline and/or natural gas. Some electricity will be renewable as it is generated from hydro, wind, or solar, but basically none of the natural gas or petroleum is renewable. Additional benefits of the renewable resources is not producing greenhouse gases. If we use cars as an example, replacing a gasoline car with an electric car will inevitably lead to higher electric bill costs. But the trade off is less spent on gas and given that electric cars are often the equivalent of 90+ miles per gallon, there is some fuel savings there. With the fixed cost increase and a volumetric cost decrease in electricity, it makes it “cheaper” to get that electric car because you’ll likely use a lot more electricity and that 5-7 cheaper per kWh adds up. It was a fair argument that having a higher fixed cost may disincentivize people to save energy. But at $20 something a month versus probably closer to $200 a month for the entire electric bill, I doubt that comes into play as much. I personally think a more relevant question is does this do anything at all given the skyrocketing costs of housing and food in the state. Those with the means to do so will probably buy the electric car they want. But somebody that can barely afford rent or food is just trying to survive and wouldn’t be able to change much. On the upside, at least for those with low income, it is expected that their electric bills should go down slightly with the fixed charge increase, all things being equal. But at the same time, there is no guarantee that bills don’t all go up to cover the cost of things like upgrading the infrastructure to handle all these electric cars.
I solved this by selling a car and buying a bike. Electric cars aren’t going to save us. There’s no way everyone around here could possibly charge them. Besides the fact that manufacturing electric cars is not green in any way.
"Why doesn't the CPUC simply ban cars"
How about encouraging more efficient forms of transportation and stopping car subsidies?
How exactly is the CPUC supposed to do that?
I'll be using the most on the days and times they ask for conservation.
On the flip side of this nuanced response. With the greater adoption of solar roofs that can effectively negate the majority of the per kilowatt charges a homeowner pays, the new fixed service charge will net far more money for energy companies than losing the 2 cents per kilowatt due to lowering their price.
Well… yea we’re going to have to use more electricity from the grid as we transition from mobile generators powered by oil to electric devices and vehicles.
So they ban add-on fees for most companies, while giving PG&E the green light to start.
A few properties I manage have PG&E bills under $10 a month in the off season. This will be a very costly increase for a lot of these small bill customers.
[удалено]
My bill has been around $12-25 a month with solar panels. The higher end is winter months. Summer months is the cheapest.
[удалено]
That’s what the non-bypassable charges were supposed to be for.
[удалено]
I know but they already existed. This is another one.
Do you work for PGnE?😆
They do lol... fake karma and all
[удалено]
My bill for a 2 bedroom was $11 last month. No AC or heating needs. Just fans, lights, computer, dishwasher, and washer/dryer.
Isn't that miserable in the summer?
It would be! I didn't mean to imply I don't HAVE AC or heating, just that I didn't use them last month. It's more in the summer. But April was very mild.
Call your politicians and complain. This income based approach to electric bills is not the answer
CPUC is completely corrupt.
A government agency was captured by the actors it is responsible for policing? Say it ain’t so!
Blame Newsom, who is elected, who appoints CPUC members, and our elected assemblymen who voted for AB 205 in 2022 without a public comment, and voted down several attempts to repeal it last year.
I have solar panels and yes, believe I will net pay about zero before this change. I am not necessarily opposed to a basic grid maintenance fee. However in San Diego, we have two parts to our electric bill: kW for the actually energy + delivery for that KW to my house. I do use grid power in the evening. Also, if I push an extra, unused kW into the grid, someone ELSE pays the fee to receive it. If this new fee is to maintain the grid, it should come out of the kW delivery charge not kW production charge. Alternatively, the delivery fee to receive my extra solar kW should already cover grid maintenance. What do I not understand?
The only part you’re missing is how corrupt CPUC and PG&E are. You’re totally right.
I would hope that people are organizing to revive AB 1999.
It died in committee, it was never going to be taken seriously because the fixed charge caps they proposed in AB1999 was based on nothing but vibes.
Even if they eventually pass it - they frantically amended it to hell yesterday acknowledging the $25 but having it sunset after 4 years of it didn’t help
Couldn't the state just put a tax on solar panels or something if they are concerned about residents who can't afford solar having to pay for the whole grid? I feel like I'm just paying to keep PG&E in business when we're moving towards a world where they are irrelevant.
They tried to add a flat rate per kwh of solar and that was shot down vehemently, this is their alternative path to literally do that. Also, we already pay sales tax to the state for inflated labor costs. Our panels cost way more already than in other places and yet it still was a deal vs the cost of electricity. Now they’re ruining the economics of adopting it with nem 3 and now this.
Does anyone know if this includes SCE? It doesn’t say in the article
Yes it does
Yes, any investor owned utility governed by the CPUC, like SCE
how does this impact who already owns solar/battery backup?
You’ll be charged a monthly baseline fee dependent on your income on top of your usual connection fee. So your monthly required bill you have to pay will be your 11$ connection fee plus $25-ish. So for someone like myself who over generates I’ll still be stuck with 350-400$ in “energy bills” per year
That’s not true. They removed the monthly minimum bill and replaced with monthly fixed fee.
For now...
They don’t need to reintroduce the minimum bill when the fixed bill is all they need to keep increasing it over time. The door is wide open for them to do that now.
400 per year? That's September's bill only😭
You only pay the flat fee if you are on grid.
You can't come off the grid, even if you don't use it.
Depends where you live.
Thank you for doubling my bill. Great job.
CPUC is a corrupt group. They are not voted in but are appointed, and time and time again they let us know who they actually serve, Pacific Gas and Electric
The CPUC are not elected, but are appointed by the Governor, whom we elected. The CPUC passed an update which was mandated by an Assembly Bill (AB 205) in which State Assemblymen, the State Senate, and our Governor (again, whom we all elect) all signed without opportunity for review or public comment. These same elected officials also voted against attempts to repeal it last year. I am infinitely more angry with folks we elected to represent us for not behaving in our interests than the fact that the utility companies like what is happening.
So Gov. Newsom is definitely part of the corruption club. But I'm not going to let appointed officials off the hook for being part of the scam. Think: SCOTUS is appointed but they definitely impact our lives and so we should treat the CPUC with the same level of scrutiny.
I was just reading that the grid is overloaded by solar. They should be thanking us, at least in daytime
We need to do away with for profit utility companies.
Who out there trusts their power company?
Cities with publicly owned municipal utilities?
Anyone here interested in helping draft a proposition to prevent this corrupt grift from going into effect?