California's electricity rates will shift to a fixed fee based on income

My rate in California is now 41 cents per kwh. My friends in Idaho are paying 10 cents. When (if) gasoline drops below $4.50-4.75 a gallon, it&#x27;ll make more sense to just run my Chevy Volt on gasoline than electricity.<p>Californian&#x27;s like to complain we pay 50-100% more than gasoline than the rest of the country, but it I think if more people knew they&#x27;d be really annoyed they pay 4x more for electricity.

I love California for so many reasons, but charging me more for using less is not one of them.<p>If we can’t cut costs by running on pure renewables because we need to “make up for lost profits”, this whole green plan will never work. Will we pay oil companies for lost profit from EVs?<p>Just make usage below some threshold free and keep the same rates (or raise them) for high users. Simple and fair.

This is pure corruption (from a SacBee article [1]):<p>&quot;When a proposal to roll back the fixed rate plan was discussed in a committee hearing last month, all 14 lawmakers abstained from voting — shelving the controversial measure.&quot;<p>So no vote at all on rolling back fixed rates. We truly have the best democracy money can buy.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sacbee.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;politics-government&#x2F;capitol-alert&#x2F;article288420595.html#storylink=cpy" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sacbee.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;politics-government&#x2F;capitol-aler...</a>&quot;

&gt; The new California charge will be $24 for most customers, but lower income households, who already qualify for discounted electric rates, will see fees of either $6 or $12.<p>This will never go down. It will only go up.<p>And the real idea here is to get a min fixed amount from net zero customers with their own generation (ie solar).

I feel deceived for installing a roof-top solar. Having got one to help CA go solar, it is now becoming a burden as I will be paying more in monthly bills. PGE has already reduced the true-up they pay for generating more electricity, this one is another nail in the coffin.

Sounds like inhabitants of that state need to get together in local groups where everyone has solar panels on the roof, some have wind generators, some have ICE-powered generators and maybe some even have some small-scale hydro (does that exist there?) into local &#x27;microgrids&#x27; and just go &#x27;off-grid&#x27;. From what I read here even running natural gas powered generators end up being less expensive per produced kWh so it should easily be less expensive than pulling power from the grid. If the grid does not want you, why would you want the grid?<p>Call your local groups &#x27;electrical power councils&#x27; (Электроэнергетические советы or &#x27;Elektroenergeticheskiye soviety&#x27;) - and it should go down quite well with the more &#x27;progressive&#x27; sections of that state.

I don&#x27;t really understand this article. &quot;The new California charge will be $24 for most customers, but lower income households, who already qualify for discounted electric rates, will see fees of either $6 or $12.&quot;. What? Is this like a surcharge of some kind on top of a regular use charge? The average electric bill in NYS is $230 a month, in California it&#x27;s $220. So I don&#x27;t really understand the context for this article.

What is stopping low income people from growing weed with subsidies for power and selling it illegally and not reporting the income to stay under the limit?

Headline is editorialized. They&#x27;re not getting rid of usage-based fees like the headline here implies

Where is the incentive for everyone to not mine bitcoins?