Posted on 02/04/2024 9:12:22 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Typical dumber-than-dirt dimmocrap thinking. Why bother to conserve energy if you are a high income person then? And why not burn your lights and gas day and night if you are low income?
Do the same for Auto registration.
Will the barons bow to their king?
Two observations:
1. If I were ‘well-to-do’ (owning a business), I’d have the house set up with solar/wind power, and attempt to limit my use of commercial power to 10-percent or less...of my needs. The power companies would soon realize that the normal use plan for the grid is screwed-up.
2. The middle-class (not in the well-to-do club) would soon realize that they are paying 150 to 250 percent of what was normal. It might take several years, but most would ask why stay, and plan a exit strategy. Home prices would start by 2030 to drop because there isn’t much interest in getting a home with extra electrical cost.
My guess is that they are so PO’s because this will hit all of them harder.
It’s amazing how democrats will oppose any plan that has a negative impact on quality of THEIR lives and finances.
Does that mean that people with no income get free electricity?
From each according to his ability. And to each according to his need.
Where have you heard that begore?
There are a lot of very wealthy people who have zero income.
Picture the optic of poor people being forced to subsidize the mansions of the ultra-wealthy in California.
Yes, I know. That was why I was asking.
I am far from wealthy but I have no income.
Tiered prices would do it better.
A low rate for a small amount of usage for a poor and/or super frugal home, a normal rate for a wide range in the middle of normal usage, a higher rate for high usage, and an exorbitant rate for the mansions that have the usage of apartment complexes, that would be the way for conservation purposes.
It wouldn’t be the best way for large, even huge immigrant households that are great at hiding income.
I’m noticing that many poverty programs are not geared toward non-immigrant Americans and the elderly but are focused on the lifestyles and households of foreigners.
This also essentially ensures Newsom will not be the post-Biden replacement, since there is no way this idea can be supported nationwide.
The income based fee structure isn’t based on usage. It’s strictly a fee to be connected to the grid. So if you make $180K in San Diego, you would pay $128/month + whatever power you use.
If you have solar power with a battery storage system that could cover your consumption, plus a generator for backup, you could avoid the fee by disconnecting from the grid.
What a GOLD MINE for cryptocurrency!
Miners can hook all their servers to some poor dude’s house, and reimburse said poor dude for the $20 bucks a month or whatever is billed for the gigawatt hours at that meter.
Talk about an idea so dumb it could only be produced by an intellectual!
Communism.
Except that it is a new income based flat rate for “delivery/infrastructure” PLUS the regular usage per kWh at a slightly reduced rate per KWh.
https://grist.org/energy/income-based-electric-bills-the-newest-utility-fight-in-california/
I think they will vary the rate per hour, not the total charge.
“I think they will vary the rate per hour, not the total charge.”
They could do this, but others point out there is a fixed component that they want to vary. I don’t know any difference in this versus an increase in taxes. Not sure how proposed plan changes usage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.