CA state mandated rate restructure July 2024

[Ampster]

I still don't see anyway they can get an accurate read on household income. Way too many variables.

.

One variation I saw suggested is that tha default rate would be the highest rate and the burden would be on the user to prove that they have lower income to get to the lower fixed rate based on proof the user would supply.

[TSHRED]

Here is a more recent artical from a source biased in favor of solar.
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/04/...icity-charges/

I still don't see anyway they can get an accurate read on household income. Way too many variables.

[Ampster]

Here is a more recent artical from a source biased in favor of solar.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/04/27/california-proposes-income-based-fixed-electricity-charges/

[Ampster]

Is that even legal in California? I'm under the impression that if one of the big 3 California POCO's service your area you need to be connected.

Yes, it is a building code requirement for safety reasons. There is nothing that says you have to use that power but the new tarriff, in whatever form it takes, will insure that you will pay some additional fixed fee beyond the existing fixed fee.

[RichardCullip]

This thread reminds me of how great my brother will have it when he disengages from the grid. Massive solar on the house he's buying, but he doesn't want to be associated with PG&E so he wants to take the whole house off grid.

Is that even legal in California? I'm under the impression that if one of the big 3 California POCO's service your area you need to be connected.

[J.P.M.]

This thread reminds me of how great my brother will have it when he disengages from the grid. Massive solar on the house he's buying, but he doesn't want to be associated with PG&E so he wants to take the whole house off grid.

Hope he's got deep pockets and a lot of time to babysit the system.

[Old_Man]

This thread reminds me of how great my brother will have it when he disengages from the grid. Massive solar on the house he's buying, but he doesn't want to be associated with PG&E so he wants to take the whole house off grid.

[Ampster]

And, as long as the text conveyed/exchanged doesn't contain anything inaccurate, .............

In that context, to be more acurate about this issue, we are not waiting for this to become law as implied in post #49 and in an earlier post by Reid1boys. As the article described, this is a rate issue that will be decided administrativly by the CPUC sometime in 2024. The law driving this issue has already been passed by the legislator and signed by the governor.

[Reid1boys]

And, as long as the text conveyed/exchanged doesn't contain anything inaccurate, dangerous or grossly inaccurate and not corrected, like Reid seems to be implying, where's the harm besides a few stary electrons and maybe some wasted time.

What is it I am implying?? You lost me?

[J.P.M.]

And that's why we are here!

To speculate about future encounters with the opposite sex ?
Why didn't somebody tell me that 14,638 posts ago ?

[jflorey2]

. . .that's no more than speculation about the future course of utility rate reform is not unlike a B.S. session in a college dorm or a squad bay with guys speculating about their future encounters with the opposite sex (only without the humor but all of the uncertainly).

And that's why we are here!

[J.P.M.]

It would seem that way? We are just content providers bringing leads to the sponsor of this forum. If the Mods have a problem with the subject matter of this discussion they are free to shut it down. Similarly others who chose not to speculate can chose not to participate or complain. Either way . I see similar discussions on other forums as we did with the long process of the Sucessor Tariff (NEM 3.0)

And, as long as the text conveyed/exchanged doesn't contain anything inaccurate, dangerous or grossly inaccurate and not corrected, like Reid seems to be implying, where's the harm besides a few stray electrons and maybe some wasted time.

[Ampster]

......

And yes, we are all speculating..... but it is a FORUM for discussion, no?

It would seem that way? We are just content providers bringing leads to the sponsor of this forum. If the Mods have a problem with the subject matter of this discussion they are free to shut it down. Similarly others who chose not to speculate can chose not to participate or complain. Either way . I see similar discussions on other forums as we did with the long process of the Sucessor Tariff (NEM 3.0)

[J.P.M.]

And yes, we are all speculating..... but it is a FORUM for discussion, no?

Well, that's part of it, but until we've something more substantial to discuss all this stuff that's no more than speculation about the future course of utility rate reform is not unlike a B.S. session in a college dorm or a squad bay with guys speculating about their future encounters with the opposite sex (only without the humor but all of the uncertainly).

[Reid1boys]

As I wrote, all this jaw jacking we're doing may be a premature.
There will be a lot of iterating and dealing before any of this B.S. makes it into law - but that doesn't mean it'll be going away or be good for residential PV owners once the dust settles.

No matter what the final outcome is, it will never end well for PV owners. I am only paying them 30 per month to be connected to the grid. That is simply not enough money coming from me to them and they will never stop coming up with new plans to try and get money out of my pocket for nothing. As battery costs continue to drop I suspect more and more people will try to be 100% self sufficient and go off grid. I think that days is in the near future... especially if they try to take 85 bucks a month out of my pocket to the tune of 1k per year. Batteries would be paid for in short order using that same money for a battery vs subsidizing low income rate payers.

And yes, we are all speculating..... but it is a FORUM for discussion, no?