3 ms·
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 i
by raylad 3y ago
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.
- Plasmoid 3y agoThe article is bad. It's not switching to flat rate, it's raising the stand-by charge and reducing the per-unit cost of energy. So it will definitely encourage more consumption but it's not the complete lunacy of flat rate electricity.
- caseyf7 3y agoIt’s not really about consumption. It is a stealth way for PG&E to get urban areas to subsidize rural areas. This is likely driven by vegetation management costs in rural areas.
- sagarm 3y agoAs the sibling notes, there is still a per-Kwh charge. The change is supposed to be revenue neutral and more closely matches PG&E's real costs (grid maintenance is 75%, generation is ~25%). This actually supports electrification by making it more feasible to switch to heat pumps vs gas heat. 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.