-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
California Utilities Plan All Out War On Solar, Please Read And Help
- Thread starter gene
- Start date
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.
Roseville, for example charges a fixed $30 monthly minimum. PG&E, if using that modeling, would need to have everyone pay more as lots of delivery to far flung low population density places, or make those regions pay their actual costs incurred.
Roseville:
Rates
A lot of bills are proposed with no chance of passing. That way the sponsors can claim that they "tried." Politics 101.
But the obvious answer is the simple one: $24/mo raises a whole lot more money than $5/mo.
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?
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?
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.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."
At least for PG&E territory, the new fixed charge won't come into effect a year later in 2026 for some reason, so we can only hope on AB1999 to come up before then....
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
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,
Just like compound interest, small increments in rates that happen repeatedly, really add up over time.
And just to be clear, AB205 is law and is what is going into effect. AB1999 is a proposal to repeal AB205 with a proposed much lower utility tax. It has no chance of becoming law because even if it passes the house and senate, Newsom will veto it.
At this point, it will either have to become a ballot measure or repealed by the state supreme court.
It was all virtue signaling. Never seriously considered.
Especially after state lawmakers killed AB1999 on Thursday, a proposal authored by Assembly Member Jacqui Irwin, D-Thousand Oaks (Ventura County), that would have established guardrails on how much the new fixed fee can jump in a given year.
And they did so without casting a single “no” vote.
Hi All
SB 1374 passed the state Senate yesterday in a 28-7 vote.
The bill—SB 1374 (Becker)—now goes to the Assembly, where it will need to pass the Utilities & Energy Committee, the Appropriations Committee, and the Assembly floor. It will then go to Gov. Newsom’s desk for his signature.
This is an important bill. It reverses a terrible CPUC decision that strips renters, schools, and farms of their fundamental solar right and sets a bad precedent that could affect homeowners, businesses, and houses of worship down the road. More background.
See how your Senator voted. Note: "NVR" means no vote recorded. Sometimes that means the legislator was absent. Many times it is a way to vote No without being on the record as voting No. If your Senator is recorded as NVR, you might inquire as to whether they were present on the floor that day, and if so, press them on why they essentially rejected the bill.
SB1190
Another Solar Bill passed the State Senate yesterday, AB1190 (Senator Laird): Would prevent mobile home park owners from blocking rooftop solar on homes in their parks. The bill passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0.) Ordered to the Assembly." Min was an NVR.
Thinking that perhaps Senator Min was absent vs just not voting on either bill, so if you are a constituent, please call his office to get the details. 916.651.4037
Regarding the Utility Tax issue, more updates for you in a few days. In the meantime, this SF Chronicle editorial reflects the latest and NAILS the situation putting the blame on Buffy Wicks, chair of the Asm Appropriations and the other committee members that voted NVR. The fight lives on.
SB 1374 passed the state Senate yesterday in a 28-7 vote.
The bill—SB 1374 (Becker)—now goes to the Assembly, where it will need to pass the Utilities & Energy Committee, the Appropriations Committee, and the Assembly floor. It will then go to Gov. Newsom’s desk for his signature.
This is an important bill. It reverses a terrible CPUC decision that strips renters, schools, and farms of their fundamental solar right and sets a bad precedent that could affect homeowners, businesses, and houses of worship down the road. More background.
See how your Senator voted. Note: "NVR" means no vote recorded. Sometimes that means the legislator was absent. Many times it is a way to vote No without being on the record as voting No. If your Senator is recorded as NVR, you might inquire as to whether they were present on the floor that day, and if so, press them on why they essentially rejected the bill.
SB1190
Another Solar Bill passed the State Senate yesterday, AB1190 (Senator Laird): Would prevent mobile home park owners from blocking rooftop solar on homes in their parks. The bill passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0.) Ordered to the Assembly." Min was an NVR.
Thinking that perhaps Senator Min was absent vs just not voting on either bill, so if you are a constituent, please call his office to get the details. 916.651.4037
Regarding the Utility Tax issue, more updates for you in a few days. In the meantime, this SF Chronicle editorial reflects the latest and NAILS the situation putting the blame on Buffy Wicks, chair of the Asm Appropriations and the other committee members that voted NVR. The fight lives on.
PG&E is planning on rolling out a shift-the-blame messaging and another attack on solar.
Very carefully deflecting blame everywhere but themselves...
Similar threads
