San Diego UT Article "Free Cars for Energy Hogs"

RandyS said:

Please check out this UT news article and consider posting some comments online. I have a conflict of interest because of my employer, so I won't post any comments, but there are so many facts being stretched in this article it's hard to know where to begin....Free cars? Not sure where he got that info, because like most of you, I paid through the nose for both of my EVs....

Free cars for energy hogs Page 1 of 2 | UTSanDiego.com

Click to expand...

Not a big fan the UT, but the author does partially explain the "free car" claim.

Even with the extra consumption to power his car, his bill has dropped by the equivalent of an auto loan payment or more.

Click to expand...

The author doesn't say how much money was actually saved, but it's clear "free car" means that the savings on the electric bill cover the monthly payments on the car. It seems to me that someone with a very large electric bill could conceivably save $600 a month, which is what Tesla estimates for the base Model S.

- - - Updated - - -

Also the guy with $1000 bill bought a Volt, which Chevy says can be leased for $300 a month, so it seems plausible. I wish the author would back up these claims by showing the math, though.

I tried to post this on the UT site, but I do not have a Facebook page (nor do I want one, a story for another time)

Ok, so I am a little confused. The author of the article seems to be upset that "smart/rich" people get all of the "free" stuff, and the "poor/dumb" people "pay for it". I almost feel sorry for the author. Dan states that his electric bill is a "miserly $50 a month or so" like he either cannot afford to pay more or is upset that people can afford to pay more for electricity. My position is to learn the rules of the game and then bend them to your favor. We signed up for the a/c cycling program with Edison several years ago, and even with the 100 degree plus temps at times the highest bill is less than $95.00 a month (typically $35 to $45 a month) We have switched to LED lighting, have purchased energy efficient appliances, turn off lights when not being used, ect... Home Power magazine, using home made solar panels for yard lighting and other uses have educated us on being responsible for what we consume. Even thou we do not own an electric car yet, when Mitsubishi came out with the MiEV, it would have been perfect for my commute from Murrieta to Ontario to work. The 42 miles one way is well within range and the savings in fuel would have almost made a car payment (but my paid off Saturn is hard to beat!). Lifestyle choices have allowed us to cut expenses while not sacrificing comfort. Owning a Tesla (or two) with solar panels to charge them is the end game for us.

TOU pricing should be offered to everyone or not at all.

However the tiered pricing is just making the wealthy pay more for electricity to subsidize everyone else. Whether you agree with it or not that needs to be made clear.

richkae said:

TOU pricing should be offered to everyone or not at all.

However the tiered pricing is just making the wealthy pay more for electricity to subsidize everyone else. Whether you agree with it or not that needs to be made clear.

Click to expand...

No, it's making the heavy users subsidize everyone else. Rich people can reduce their usage and get into a lower tier, if they want.

UT San Diego is in my opinion not a legitimate source of news, ever since the Union-Tribune was renamed and turned into a vehicle for its owner's political interests. I wouldn't trust a single word published in that thing anymore, especially about Tesla. The author of the story has an attitude and bias that is getting in the way of, or perhaps, intentionally obscuring, the facts.

But if you really want to, email the guy, and set him straight. Not that I expect him to respond to things like facts in any rational way. But his email is [email protected]

brianstorms said:

UT San Diego is in my opinion not a legitimate source of news, ever since the Union-Tribune was renamed and turned into a vehicle for its owner's political interests. I wouldn't trust a single word published in that thing anymore, especially about Tesla. The author of the story has an attitude and bias that is getting in the way of, or perhaps, intentionally obscuring, the facts.

Click to expand...

This is true of 90% of the mainstream media.

That's a terrible article. It should be "Free cars for people who can do basic math and pay attention to their electricity/gasoline costs." And they aren't really, free, they simply didn't pay attention to their spending habits. I can't wait till the article on free electric cars for people who eat out less or get rid of credit card/payday loan debt and the super high (25+%) interest rates.