3 ms·
If it was anywhere other than CA, I'd guess that this was the only way they thought they could pass increased transfer payments. But with the current power bala
by MostlyStable 3y ago
If it was anywhere other than CA, I'd guess that this was the only way they thought they could pass increased transfer payments. But with the current power balance in CA, I find that hard to believe. Maybe they just think this will be more politically palatable than changing taxes? If so, I'm skeptical it will work out for them. This is pretty blatantly obvious.
- Guvante 3y agoHonestly it looks like Power companies trying to get a fixed payment predicting that their costs will go down overtime leading to a net win for them.
- dragonwriter 3y agoIt moves part of the rate to a fixed payment, and its still subject to the usual periodic CPUC rate process, which includes cost analysis, so if their costs really were going down, they’d see the rates cut. The point is to deal better with the economics of established widespread distributed generation and to avoid disencentives to displacing existing residential gas use with electricity, and to similarly improve the incentive structure of home-charged BEVs vs. gasoline vehicles. Doing that takes splitting payment for generation (per kW) from connectivity (fixed) rather than inflating per kW costs to capture the average costs of connectivity.
- Guvante 3y agoI do think there is value in a larger fixed payment regardless of this implementation. After all, a lot of the costs aren't in generation but delivery.