San Diego electric company proposes billing based on income instead of usage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read the proposal.
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.

If I'm being billed based on income, I'm getting my money's worth. Off the top of my head, crypto mining doesn't make financial sense based primarily on the cost of energy. If I'm locked into $128 a month, all of the sudden that 5 figure bill doesn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I lived in San Diego a few years ago, on the water bill there was a section to donate money to pay other people's water bills. This does not shock me in the slightest.

Surprised they didn’t ask you to tip 20% for delivering the service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$.47/kwh is an insane rate. Even $.27/kwh is insane.

Maybe they should just figure out why their rates are so high in the first place and fix whatever is causing that?

Bingo. The average residential rate per kWh in the US in 2022 was 15.12 cents. California was the highest in the lower 48 states at 26.17 cents per kWh. High electricity costs, high gasoline costs, high taxes, rampant crime and homelessness - I wonder why so many people are moving out of California??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$.47/kwh is an insane rate. Even $.27/kwh is insane.

Maybe they should just figure out why their rates are so high in the first place and fix whatever is causing that?

Bingo. The average residential rate per kWh in the US in 2022 was 15.12 cents. California was the highest in the lower 48 states at 26.17 cents per kWh. High electricity costs, high gasoline costs, high taxes, rampant crime and homelessness - I wonder why so many people are moving out of California??

I do to. La Jolla is down right cheap with all the people fleeing. Never mind, the prices in San Diego are still extremely high because there is far more demand than supply

[Anonymous]

This sort of thing will be coming to everything soon. Start looking for ways to generate off the books income folks.

[Anonymous]

What's funny about this is my average annual bill for electricity is less than just the fixed cost for the high income people. I thank God every day I don't live in California.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the proposal.
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.

If I'm being billed based on income, I'm getting my money's worth. Off the top of my head, crypto mining doesn't make financial sense based primarily on the cost of energy. If I'm locked into $128 a month, all of the sudden that 5 figure bill doesn't matter.

This actually creates a disincentive for people to use less electricity by pushing more costs into the fixed component. I don't see how that's good for the environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read the proposal.
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.

47 cents? It is ten cents if you are not fixated on renewable energy mandates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a feeling lower-income households are using the most energy.

I don't have to wear in sweatshirt in August because the homes on my food pantry route have AC cranking to cool their tiny apartment to 62 degrees. I think you need to do a little more research into energy usage.

That is how people explain that policies to combat global warming will reduce energy bills. Because people will be living in smaller apartments as they make suburban living more expensive. It doesn't cost as much to cool a small apartment. Though this is counteracted by the more expensive energy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the proposal.
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.

If I'm being billed based on income, I'm getting my money's worth. Off the top of my head, crypto mining doesn't make financial sense based primarily on the cost of energy. If I'm locked into $128 a month, all of the sudden that 5 figure bill doesn't matter.

This actually creates a disincentive for people to use less electricity by pushing more costs into the fixed component. I don't see how that's good for the environment.

That is the delivery rate. There would still be a usage fee on top of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I lived in San Diego a few years ago, on the water bill there was a section to donate money to pay other people's water bills. This does not shock me in the slightest.

This section is on the water, gas, and electric bills in Maryland. Specifically, on Pepco, BGE, Washington Gas, and WSSC bills. I think this is common for utilities to have this charitable fund.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, this is WILD:

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

It’s in the name of making things more equitable…

I don’t see how this works well… what if someone has solar, for example? Although are lower income people more likely to have smaller abodes making less demands for electricity?

Oh, GOD! The left

You stupid goobers can’t even understand the actual proposal so you stop at the headline and then think you have a clue. The actual proposal is to cap the delivery fee. Everyone still pays the same price for all of the kWh they consume.

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

“By having a fixed price for the delivery portion, we can actually reduce the remaining electricity rate by about 42% so that can create additional bill savings,” said Scott Crider, SDG&E's Vice President of External Affairs and Operations Support.”

And you actually. Believe them? Of course you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$.47/kwh is an insane rate. Even $.27/kwh is insane.

Maybe they should just figure out why their rates are so high in the first place and fix whatever is causing that?

Bingo. The average residential rate per kWh in the US in 2022 was 15.12 cents. California was the highest in the lower 48 states at 26.17 cents per kWh. High electricity costs, high gasoline costs, high taxes, rampant crime and homelessness - I wonder why so many people are moving out of California??

Wow crazy.
Top ten states by population
(State - population - percent change)
1 California 40,223,504 2.51%
2 Texas 30,345,487 2.77%
3 Florida 22,359,251 2.65%
4 New York 20,448,194 3.09%
5 Pennsylvania 13,092,796 0.99%
6 Illinois 12,807,072 1.07%
7 Ohio 11,878,330 0.83%
8 Georgia 11,019,186 2.03%
9 North Carolina 10,710,558 1.51%
10 Michigan 10,135,438 0.84%

https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/states-by-population/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I lived in San Diego a few years ago, on the water bill there was a section to donate money to pay other people's water bills. This does not shock me in the slightest.

WSSC has that here. It’s not mandatory.

[Anonymous]

This isn’t about equity it’s about reclaiming lost revenue from the people making over 180K getting solar. Typical utility move to protect profits while pretending to help the community.