SDG&E, PG&E, SCE propose billing electricity customers based on income

[BigmanPigman]

https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/working-for-you/sdge-proposes-billing-customers-based-on-income/509-a2e48373-bfe7-4e4b-9767-30cdb7564082

"The proposal is part of a new state law requiring utility companies to come up with fixed-rate plans to make billing more equitable."

"SDG&E, along with Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison, teamed up and a proposal to charge people based on their income."

"Currently, you not only pay for how much electricity your household uses, but other things such as how that electricity is delivered.

Both prices vary month to month.

SDG&E's plan is to offer residential customers a fixed delivery rate every billing cycle, no matter how much electricity is used.

What could that look like?

Under the current billing system, at 47 cents per kilowatt hour, the average customer pays $188 per month.
Under the fixed rate proposal, the customer would pay $181.
Hybrid
Here's a breakdown of where you'd fall based on your income.

Households earning less than $28,000 a year would pay a fixed delivery rate of $24 per month.
Households earning under $69,000, that fixed price goes up to $34.
Households earning between $69,000 and $180,000, that price goes up to $73.
Households earning over $180,000 dollars will pay $128.
Everyone's average kilowatt hour rate drops from 47 cents to 27 cents."

[grumpyduck]

1. So a household with, say, $500K annual income

and a large house wouldn't pay much more than someone making a third of that with a smaller house.

Yeah, that makes sense. To the rich.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. The math is confusing to me

Corporations as agents of economic equality. I don't see an incentive to save energy. Flat rate pricing you just freeze in the summer and broil in the winter. It's like renting a hotel room.

[Thunderbeast]

3. ...and just WHAT problem does this solve?

Consumers SHOULD make the connection between consumption and cost. Artificial subsidies based on income should be transparent and easy to understand.

Whether it's housing, utilities, food, or medical care....Wages and income ARE TOO LOW to support wage-earners, especially those working at traditionally low paid jobs. The hourly minimum wage should be about $25 had inflation adjustments been made since the 70s.

Investors have stolen ALL of the benefits of a growing economy since Milton Friedman economists started running federal policy.

[2naSalit]

4. +1

[CoopersDad]

5. I understand this, it's better than what we have today

Currently (no pun intended) a natural disincentive exists with tier billing: big homes using more power pay a premium for high use.

That premium is erased for homeowners who can afford a solar and or battery backup that shifts time of use and counteracts high rates, and that means it hurts the poorer ratepayers.

The Time of Use and Tiered Rate schedules notwithstanding, paying a recurring connection fee that's higher for higher incomes while dropping per KWH charges would help more people than it would hurt, I think.

[Zorro]

6. Might be a sneaky way to make homeowners with solar panels pay more

Those with solar systems grandfathered in under NEM 1.0 get credited at market rates for excess electricity generation; the proposal indicates a 20 cent/KWH reduction in that credit while having those homeowners pay an income-based fixed delivery fee.