California’s three largest power companies have proposed sweeping changes to the state’s Public Utilities Commission that will affect the electricity bills of households across the region. Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric, and San Diego Gas & Electric submitted a joint proposal last week, outlining a new rate structure that will follow the passage of Assembly Bill 205 last year. The legislation requires a fixed rate and generally simpler bills for customers.
Under the proposal:
- Households earning less than $28,000 a year would pay a fixed charge of $15 a month on their electric bills in Edison and PG&E territories and $24 a month in SDG&E territory.
- Households with annual income from $28,000 – $69,000 would pay $20 a month in Edison territory, $34 a month in SDG&E territory and $30 a month in PG&E territory.
- Households earning from $69,000 – $180,000 would pay $51 a month in Edison and PG&E territories and $73 a month in SDG&E territory.
- Those with incomes above $180,000 would pay $85 a month in Edison territory, $128 a month in SDG&E territory and $92 a month in PG&E territory.
In addition to the changes in rates, recurring charges for items such as maintenance and operations will be removed. The basic idea behind these changes is that customers who earn more will pay more. The new rate structure will make it easier for customers to understand their bills and plan for their monthly expenses. However, some customers may see an increase in their electricity bills under the new system. The proposal is currently under review by the state’s Public Utilities Commission and a decision is expected to be made in the coming months.
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
7 Responses
Believe or not, those utilities companies were overcharging many people for quite a while, very often the metters results were falsified.
In other words, you can use all the electricity you want for a flat monthly amount. There’s nothing stopping you. That will be until they run low and force people to reduce. Then there will be rationing.
This proposal deviates entirely from cost-of-service ratemaking and potentially provides perverse incentives to use more power at peak hours. The article is a bit misleading since it fails to note that the total bill is the sum of these income-based fixed rate charges PLUS a variable energy (KWH) component based on the amount of electricity used. The variable component would have to ratchet up quickly and vary by time-of-use to avoid having individual customers use large amounts of power to heat their swimming pools, charge their Teslas etc. w/o regard to the significantly higher cost of generating power during peak hours.
Makes sense
In a communist country
In a communist/democRAT run State like California.
it sounds like this proposal is based on the dubious notion that the rich must be made to pay, because there are far more poor votes to be had. and the administration to verify household income, and process complaints, will keep lots of people employed. it would have been simpler to ratchet up the income tax rates a bit, and do away with the fixed charges entirely.
“In other words, you can use all the electricity you want for a flat monthly amount….”
MDG: NO!….What article are your reading? Only the fixed charge component of the bill would be income-based. Obviously, you will still have to pay a variable energy charge for the amount of KWH you consume each month. The concern is that the energy charge may not be time-dependent to match the cost of generation during peak hours when the California utilities need to dispatch more expensive peaking units OR that the energy charges will also be subsidized to some extent for small users.