I’m paying way more now than someone who makes $180k a year would under this proposal. And with all the extra electricity they likely use, this would still be a huge saving.
I think this would be the push we need to go solar. $180k is not a lot in Silicon Valley. We already pay way more in taxes without our increased COL being taken into account. This really gets my goat.
Any first draft proposed by the **for profit** companies should be seen as highly suspect and to be designed in their favor. A better middle ground is cap the charge for households making less than X and then usage based after that so the solar people still get the benefit of their investment.
Edit: For low income households there would need to be some type of overage fee based on “neighborhood” average and household size etc just to make sure they don’t just leave every light on and device running cause they no longer pay for it.
Bluesparc says
Not really a not the onion kinda take…
likeasirjohn says
Supply and demand.
SnowProkt22 says
I’m down for it, but only if they charge corporations based on how much money THEY make and have individual consumers pay a proportional amount.
IgnoreIfOffended says
Huh, and here I thought that was what taxes were supposed to do. 🤔
danecookofmods says
I’m paying way more now than someone who makes $180k a year would under this proposal. And with all the extra electricity they likely use, this would still be a huge saving.
aannoonn2021 says
I think this would be the push we need to go solar. $180k is not a lot in Silicon Valley. We already pay way more in taxes without our increased COL being taken into account. This really gets my goat.
Ube_Ape says
>The plan would break monthly bills in two parts: The fixed-income rate, plus a reduced usage charge based on consumption
So you’d still be charged for usage, a few rate hikes and the “reduced” charge will not feel so reduced.
niceguybadboy says
Not at all oniony.
This scale system (escala) has been in effect for certain countries in South America for quite some years.
It serves as a discount for people in really low income neighorhoods, and as a tax on the rich among the high earners.
It kinda works.
Analyst-Effective says
I would gladly pay their highest rate. Mine is a lot higher than that as it is
jaxsd75 says
Any first draft proposed by the **for profit** companies should be seen as highly suspect and to be designed in their favor. A better middle ground is cap the charge for households making less than X and then usage based after that so the solar people still get the benefit of their investment.
Edit: For low income households there would need to be some type of overage fee based on “neighborhood” average and household size etc just to make sure they don’t just leave every light on and device running cause they no longer pay for it.
peat_phreak says
That would be fine if it reduced expenses for the poor instead of creating more profit for the utility.
SDdude81 says
Just a terrible idea.
SCE claims that they would lower their rates they charge for usage and that will be charged on top of the monthly income based fee.
There is no word to what the new rates would be or how long they would be in effect.