I am so sick of PG&E - our energy bills are nearly $1,000/mo. It's absolutely bonkers.
You could literally have half the power bill tomorrow if CA would stop taxing it.
With usage based bills, people with solar pay less than their fair share for the maintenance component of a utility's cost, which means that this cost is larger for the other rate payers. On top of this California has huge subsidies to early rooftop solar adopters. This structure hurts lower income people more since lower income people are more likely to rent and apartments don't have as much space for / not as interested in rooftop solar.
So the CPUC started exploring different models for adding a bigger fixed charge to the bill and lowering the per-kwh cost. Of course the rooftop solar installers hated this as did the different "equity groups." Which is where you got the idea to adjust the fixed charge based on income.
I don't think it's a great idea but I at least understand where the CPUC is coming from. We probably need more innovation in utility pricing models.
The issue I have with this idea is that it basically punishes initiative or people who invested in energy efficient products. What’s the point if you can just wait and juice the other guy? Is the climate change a deadly serious issue or not?
Similarly, the part about taxation is self-inflicted wound, where they could have came up with a subsidy, that would have much less complains.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/pge-electrici...
It is best as it is today: a consumption tax, like the gasoline tax. What justification is there for charging a higher income bracket more for electricity? You could make the "infrastructure maintenance burden" argument about anything: food, movie tickets, etc.
Half of 50c even if I believe you is 25c still higher than 17c.
So even if half is tax, it’s still a lot more. And, half of Santa Clara’s would also be tax.
Or some kind of production / workshop / datacentre / business usage.
My heat (for both air and water) is provided by the building's boiler and is included in the rent, rather than the utility bill. My stove and oven burn natural gas. My air conditioning is "open the windows and hope it's not 95F outside".
I could totally see someone who had to do electric heating and cooling having a far larger bill than I do (especially if they're living in a place that's large than a shoebox).
Even yours is weird. I don't have a desktop computer running but we cook or bake with electricity every other day. I do realize we spend a lot less than other people, every time I check the prices and estimates if I want to switch the companies estimate 2500kwh for two people. So there's that.
Weird. Looking at my past several bills, my monthly usage is fairly constant; ~450kWh per month. So, (if my math is correct) that puts my annual usage at ~5400kWh.
> I can't see it, even with heating, as it's California.
I've no idea where OP is, but there are inland parts of the state that get dangerously hot in the summer. Cooling could be a big concern. Plus, rental housing in the state is often poorly maintained, so all that lovely conditioned air could very well be leaking out all over the damn place.
That’s really quite a lot if you don’t have electric heating and cooling. It’d be worth trying to figure out where it’s going.
Every couple of years I look around a bit for something suitable, but have been unable to find anything that fits the bill, looks like it's not totally garbage, and isn't priced in the neighborhood of lab-grade measurement equipment.