6 ms·

Most companies give you a discount if you use more of their product. California energy works on a scarcity mindset with punitive punishments and now extra char

by m463 2y ago

Most companies give you a discount if you use more of their product. California energy works on a scarcity mindset with punitive punishments and now extra charges based on income. sigh. and the CPUC is solely in the hands of PG&E. As a customer it's sort of like wargames - the only winning move is not to play. Unless you live in say, santa clara or palo alto, where they have sane energy companies with reasonable prices (like the outside of california)

kjkjadksj 2y ago
A lot of cities in california have their own public water and power company. LADWP is probably the largest by far.
drno123 2y ago
“Extra charges based on income” - does this mean that if you earn more, you pay more for electricity?
- m463 2y ago
  https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-equity/income-based-electric-bills-the-newest-utility-fight-in-california https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-equity/income-ba...
  - leereeves 2y ago
    So you're now required to share your tax documents with the local utility company, and they will charge you a monthly fee just for earning more money?
    - jerlam 2y ago
      No, the plan was changed to have a fixed monthly fee in addition to the cost per kWh for all, but lower income households will have a lower fixed monthly fee.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - alwa 2y ago
        How do they distinguish those lower-income households without referring to tax documents?
        dataflow 2y ago
        I have no idea about this particular program, but similar programs already exist for other utilities, you can look at how they do it (open the "What information do I need to provide..." section): https://www.att.com/internet/access/ https://www.att.com/internet/access/
        rnrn 2y ago
        Previous proposals would have required everyone to provide income data to their utility which the utility would verify “somehow” (never fully articulated AFAIK) The latest proposal (which has been accepted by the CPUC) has fixed charges applied for everyone (much lower than previously proposed fixed charges) with discounts available based on existing low-income programs ( https://www.pge.com/en/account/billing-and-assistance/financial-assistance/california-alternate-rates-for-energy-program.html https://www.pge.com/en/account/billing-and-assistance/financ... ) So yes in order to get the discount low-income customers need to declare income and may need to verify that income with tax documents (depending on how much fraud these program plan to tolerate) but other customers do not need to provide income information.
- twiceaday 2y ago
  Yes. But put differently "if you earn less you pay less." It depends one what you call the "normal" price.
grecy 2y ago
> the only winning move is not to play. And with so much sun, that is a very viable option. A roof covered in solar and some batteries and you'll never deal with this nonsense ever again.
- dmitrygr 2y ago
  It is illegal in California to disconnect a residential house from the grid. It’s ca. They wouldn’t make it THAT easy to opt out of their insanity.
  - orhmeh09 2y ago
    Source?
    - alwa 2y ago
      Lawyers argued that Title 24 required that residential buildings be interconnected with the grid [0] [1], but 2022 updates to the code seem to have clarified that standalone solar PV systems with storage are OK (though they should still be meet the same standards as grid-connected systems would) [2] In any case the small number of people who can afford to do so and want to do so seem to be doing so [3] [0] https://www.cailaw.org/media/files/IEL/Publications/2016/grid-detection-vol10no1.pdf https://www.cailaw.org/media/files/IEL/Publications/2016/gri... [1] https://klinedinstlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/how-title-24-is-keeping-california-connected-to-the-grid.pdf https://klinedinstlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/how-tit... [2] https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/online-resource-center/overview https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/build... [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/168mlxw/possiblelegal_to_go_completely_off_grid_in/?rdt=63325 https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/168mlxw/possiblelega...
  - reacharavindh 2y ago
    Are there fixed costs to having a connection? As in can one have a connection to the grid as a backup pay negligible amounts every month since they don’t use it?
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Progressive taxation to support a basic shared infrastructure with strong network effects is entirely sensible. Actual criticism of real problems in California (which seems to be doing better than most states in most ways, but isn't perfect) gets buried under tribal political nonsense, where everything is an outrage.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > Progressive taxation to support a basic shared infrastructure with strong network effects is entirely sensible. It isn't crazy, but it is a bad idea. There should be one debate where we work out how much support successful people are expected to provide for their less successful peers, and one transfer payment to cover it. Then everyone pays for things as equals. Setting up multiple parallel societies where everyone has a different experience and financial incentives is wasteful. It ends up in situations where the electricity provider needs to consult with someone's accountant to work out what to charge customers. That is kinda crazy. A customer's tax position has nothing to do with the services they are provided and linking them is going to have weird second order effects. It is the same lunacy as linking paying for medical services and employment together and we have all seen how that worked out for the US. Linking parts of the system together at random is not the path to a high-functioning administrative state.
  - sokoloff 2y ago
    > linking paying for medical services and employment together which was heavily encouraged by tax policies and government-imposed price controls on labor...
  - nrook 2y ago
    When you see really goofy progressive taxes, if you look behind them, you'll usually see a strong legal or political barrier behind more sensible ones. This is why you are always hearing about ridiculous Amazon taxes coming out of the state of Washington; the place has no income tax, and progressive income taxes have been held to be unconstitutional there. So they have to get creative if they want a progressive tax. Of course, the barrier in California is the infamous Proposition 13. You're right that charging people different rates for energy based on their income is silly; if they want to let the poor off the hook they should just tax them less, or even give them money. But the state's lawmakers are operating in a constrained environment. (It's also the case that subsidies and means-tested benefits are trendy in Democratic policy-making circles, despite being dumb and inefficient compared to simpler and less directed benefits.)
OptionOfT 2y ago
You do get a discount when you buy more ahead of time, and guarantee that you will buy it. This is different from wanting a fixed price for a spot-priced product.
- m463 2y ago
  you cannot do this with PG&E unless there is some plan I haven't heard about?

by m463 2y ago

kjkjadksj 2y ago

A lot of cities in california have their own public water and power company. LADWP is probably the largest by far.

drno123 2y ago

“Extra charges based on income” - does this mean that if you earn more, you pay more for electricity?

m463 2y ago
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-equity/income-based-electric-bills-the-newest-utility-fight-in-california https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-equity/income-ba...
- leereeves 2y ago
  So you're now required to share your tax documents with the local utility company, and they will charge you a monthly fee just for earning more money?
  - jerlam 2y ago
    No, the plan was changed to have a fixed monthly fee in addition to the cost per kWh for all, but lower income households will have a lower fixed monthly fee.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - alwa 2y ago
      How do they distinguish those lower-income households without referring to tax documents?
      - dataflow 2y ago
        I have no idea about this particular program, but similar programs already exist for other utilities, you can look at how they do it (open the "What information do I need to provide..." section): https://www.att.com/internet/access/ https://www.att.com/internet/access/
      - rnrn 2y ago
        Previous proposals would have required everyone to provide income data to their utility which the utility would verify “somehow” (never fully articulated AFAIK) The latest proposal (which has been accepted by the CPUC) has fixed charges applied for everyone (much lower than previously proposed fixed charges) with discounts available based on existing low-income programs ( https://www.pge.com/en/account/billing-and-assistance/financial-assistance/california-alternate-rates-for-energy-program.html https://www.pge.com/en/account/billing-and-assistance/financ... ) So yes in order to get the discount low-income customers need to declare income and may need to verify that income with tax documents (depending on how much fraud these program plan to tolerate) but other customers do not need to provide income information.
twiceaday 2y ago
Yes. But put differently "if you earn less you pay less." It depends one what you call the "normal" price.

grecy 2y ago

> the only winning move is not to play. And with so much sun, that is a very viable option. A roof covered in solar and some batteries and you'll never deal with this nonsense ever again.

dmitrygr 2y ago
It is illegal in California to disconnect a residential house from the grid. It’s ca. They wouldn’t make it THAT easy to opt out of their insanity.
- orhmeh09 2y ago
  Source?
  - alwa 2y ago
    Lawyers argued that Title 24 required that residential buildings be interconnected with the grid [0] [1], but 2022 updates to the code seem to have clarified that standalone solar PV systems with storage are OK (though they should still be meet the same standards as grid-connected systems would) [2] In any case the small number of people who can afford to do so and want to do so seem to be doing so [3] [0] https://www.cailaw.org/media/files/IEL/Publications/2016/grid-detection-vol10no1.pdf https://www.cailaw.org/media/files/IEL/Publications/2016/gri... [1] https://klinedinstlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/how-title-24-is-keeping-california-connected-to-the-grid.pdf https://klinedinstlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/how-tit... [2] https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/online-resource-center/overview https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/build... [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/168mlxw/possiblelegal_to_go_completely_off_grid_in/?rdt=63325 https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/168mlxw/possiblelega...
- reacharavindh 2y ago
  Are there fixed costs to having a connection? As in can one have a connection to the grid as a backup pay negligible amounts every month since they don’t use it?

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

Progressive taxation to support a basic shared infrastructure with strong network effects is entirely sensible. Actual criticism of real problems in California (which seems to be doing better than most states in most ways, but isn't perfect) gets buried under tribal political nonsense, where everything is an outrage.

roenxi 2y ago
> Progressive taxation to support a basic shared infrastructure with strong network effects is entirely sensible. It isn't crazy, but it is a bad idea. There should be one debate where we work out how much support successful people are expected to provide for their less successful peers, and one transfer payment to cover it. Then everyone pays for things as equals. Setting up multiple parallel societies where everyone has a different experience and financial incentives is wasteful. It ends up in situations where the electricity provider needs to consult with someone's accountant to work out what to charge customers. That is kinda crazy. A customer's tax position has nothing to do with the services they are provided and linking them is going to have weird second order effects. It is the same lunacy as linking paying for medical services and employment together and we have all seen how that worked out for the US. Linking parts of the system together at random is not the path to a high-functioning administrative state.
- sokoloff 2y ago
  > linking paying for medical services and employment together which was heavily encouraged by tax policies and government-imposed price controls on labor...
- nrook 2y ago
  When you see really goofy progressive taxes, if you look behind them, you'll usually see a strong legal or political barrier behind more sensible ones. This is why you are always hearing about ridiculous Amazon taxes coming out of the state of Washington; the place has no income tax, and progressive income taxes have been held to be unconstitutional there. So they have to get creative if they want a progressive tax. Of course, the barrier in California is the infamous Proposition 13. You're right that charging people different rates for energy based on their income is silly; if they want to let the poor off the hook they should just tax them less, or even give them money. But the state's lawmakers are operating in a constrained environment. (It's also the case that subsidies and means-tested benefits are trendy in Democratic policy-making circles, despite being dumb and inefficient compared to simpler and less directed benefits.)

OptionOfT 2y ago

You do get a discount when you buy more ahead of time, and guarantee that you will buy it. This is different from wanting a fixed price for a spot-priced product.

m463 2y ago
you cannot do this with PG&E unless there is some plan I haven't heard about?