You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not sure there is any indisputable math as there are probably a few credible accounting takes on this. But seems most reliable to model off of what municipal utilities do as they are responsible to their local population, unlike the IOUs.Does anyone know how much it actually costs utilities to maintain the connection to a house?
I know that "utility math" is obfuscated but there must be some independent analysis of costs.
I was wondering why AB1999 was not a slam dunk, to cap or repeal the fixed monthly charge proposal. Apparently it was "tabled" by the CA House Speaker in a procedural maneuver, so never had a chance to come up for a vote. So basically crony politics between the House Speaker and Newsom....
I think this could eventually end up as a ballot initiative, and then the IOUs will use massive amounts of money for advertising against it Similar to what happened with Lyft and Uber.Even if this passes in the senate, Newsom will never sign it. The only bill that is law now is the one that allows the CPUC to tax us without any limits at all.
The only real limit will be what the CPUC and IOUs think they can get away with before enough voters have had enough and either have another recall election or vote out the politicians that supported AB205 in the first place. Is there a number by which this could pass that would override a the governor's veto?
AB1999 is dead for this legislative session, so it's not going to come up for a vote in the near future.Pretty upsetting the $24/month is there. I'd much rather a rate increase with a lower monthly. Of course, this would help all solar users more, but also encourage less energy use. AB1999 had this blurb which I'd be very behind (my bolds/color):
California AB1999 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session
Bill Text (2024-05-09) Electricity: fixed charges. [(Pending re-refer to Com. on APPR.)]legiscan.com
"This bill would repeal the provisions described in the preceding paragraph. The bill would instead permit the commission to authorize fixed charges that, as of January 1, 2015, do not exceed $5 per residential customer account per month for low-income customers enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program and that do not exceed $10 per residential customer account per month for customers not enrolled in the CARE program. The bill would authorize these maximum allowable fixed charges to be adjusted by no more than the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the prior calendar year, beginning January 1, 2016."
AB1999 has been resurrected, but with a $24 fixed fee limit (and no allowed increases, which is at least better than the CPUC ruling).
But I believe the version that was resurrected has an expiration of the $24 in a few years, so we would be going through all this again,
AB1999 has been resurrected, but with a $24 fixed fee limit (and no allowed increases, which is at least better than the CPUC ruling).
Very carefully deflecting blame everywhere but themselves...PG&E is planning on rolling out a shift-the-blame messaging and another attack on solar.
View attachment 1051309