California Utilities Seek to Charge People Based On Income, Not Energy Usage

Lead image from YouTube Video below.

Please consider PG&E Monthly Bills Could Jump Due to New State Law.

PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric, the three major California utilities whose services include electricity, have filed a joint proposal with the state Public Utilities Commission that sketches out proposed changes in monthly bills.

At present, those bills are primarily based on how much electricity and gas customers consume.

A new proposal would add a fixed monthly charge that would be based on the household income levels of the respective customers.

“This proposal aims to help lower bills for those who need it most and improves billing transparency and predictability for all customers,” said Marlene Santos, PG&E’s chief customer officer.

Predictable Charges 

  • Households earning less than $28,000 a year would pay a fixed charge of $15 a month on their electric bills.
  • Households with annual income from $28,000 to $69,000 would pay $30 a month.
  • Households earning from $69,000 to $180,000 would pay $51 a month.
  • Those with incomes above $180,000 would pay $92 a month.

Whether a household uses any electricity or not, if household income was over $180,000 then the household would pay $1,104 a year.

The fixed and variable percentages were not even disclosed. 

This would especially hit vacation homes. It would also hit high income cities like San Francisco.

Quick Facts San Francisco

According to Quick Facts San Francisco from the US Census Department, the median household income in San Francisco (in 2021 dollars), for 2017-2021 is $126,187.

Thus, at least half of San Francisco households would pay the second-highest rate no matter how little electricity they used. 

PG&E says many customers would ultimately pay less for electricity. Since “many” might mean 10 percent, the statement is likely true. 

In practice, I suspect between 75 and 90 percent of the households would pay much more and the beneficiaries a little less. 

Income Verification

Note that the process incurs news costs of verifying income.

The proposal recommends a qualified, independent state agency or third party be responsible for verifying customers’ total household incomes,” PG&E said in an emailed statement.

This is scary enough in and of itself.

Masking New Green Energy Mandates

The state wants to phase out gasoline by 2035. That will put increasing pressure on utilities to increase electrical output. 

Prices are guaranteed going up. Adding capacity is not free. 

During the 12 months that ended in February, electric utility bills — essentially arising from what PG&E charges its customers — rocketed higher by 13.6% in the Bay Area, according to a report released in March by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

This proposal is a ploy to mask inane carbon policies in California, and it won’t stop there. 

Understanding Marxism: From Each According to His Ability

Charging people for energy they do not even use for the benefit of those who allegedly need free energy is inherently Marxist. 

Needs become demands and demands become rights. Eventually the productive become virtual slaves to the productive.”

Please play the video because that’s precisely what’s going on. 

The Price of Bread or Rent

Why stop with utility prices? What about income surtaxes on rent, cars, hotels stays, or bread? 

Imagine walking into a grocery store where the price of bread is not based on the size of the loaf, but how much money you make. 

That’s what California utilities seek to do with electricity prices. 

Damn the Inflation, Full Speed Ahead

Biden’s and California’s energy policy can easily be summed up in meme phrases.

  • Damn the Inflation, Full Speed Ahead
  • What, Me Worry?
  • The world will end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.

On March 22, 2022, I commented Biden Doing Everything Possible to Drive Up the Price of Oil, Some of It’s Illegal

On November 30, 2022, I commented The EU is Very Worried About Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)

On December 3, 2022, I commented Damn That Wind, It’s Not Listening to Biden or AOC

On February 7, 2023, I commented Biden Gives a Well-Delivered SOTU Speech Begging for More Inflation and Tax Hikes

On January 16, 2023, I commented “America First”, Biden and Trump Both Guilty of Sponsoring Inflation

Biden’s Energy Policy Mandates Cause Severe Shortage of Electrical Steel and Transformers

In case you missed it, please see Biden’s Energy Policy Mandates Cause Severe Shortage of Electrical Steel and Transformers

PG&E knows it will have to raise prices significantly. Under guise of fairness, the proposal is a blatant Marxist ploy to mask the cost of inane carbon policies.

It won’t stop with energy. Look for “affordable housing” rent surtaxes based on income as the next logical target. 

Then look for the state to attempt to tax those fleeing from these Marxist ideas. 

This post originated at MishTalk.Com

Please Subscribe!

Like these reports? I hope so, and if you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

73 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cocoa
Cocoa
1 year ago
So what’s to stop me from being an energy hog? Like Capt Ahab below says-“I will just mine Bitcoin!”
Berkeley wanted to punish people who use smaller garbage cans because it was not efficient to pick their small amount of trash up. You cannot talk a lick of sense to liberals.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
1 year ago
I’d have no problem with these proposals if we knew where the money went. This will all end in a tax on living which was necessary long ago.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
No, No, No!
Rates should be determined by how popular you are.
Or perhaps how photogenic you are.
urtau
urtau
1 year ago
@Mish –
I look forward to your next article detailing your indignation of the socialist policies in place where utility customers in low density environments (say rural Utah) are dramatically subsidized by paying the same rate as customers in high-density urban areas where it is much cheaper to deliver power/water/sewer/cable on a per capita basis.
Or is it only socialism when somebody else benefits?
Six000mileyear
Six000mileyear
1 year ago
Another aspect could be charging rent based on income if a multi-unit apartment has a single meter.
Billy
Billy
1 year ago
I’m one of the rare people that welcomes this. I find it a rewarding challenge to come up with work arounds.
Webej
Webej
1 year ago
Imagine walking into a grocery store where the price of bread is not based on the size of the loaf, but how much money you make.
Imagine how many loaves will go to waste!
RonJ
RonJ
1 year ago
“The world will end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”
It has been 12 years. a few times over, already. Maybe they should switch to a bakers dozen.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
I know where I’m going to mine Bitcoin.
Jeff Dog
Jeff Dog
1 year ago
weren’t you supposed to get the same deal for 20 years if you had rooftop solar?
JimK
JimK
1 year ago
Wonderful. Our household income would be in the highest tier, but our _entire_ electricity bill has never been more than about $75 / month….
Intelligentyetidiot
Intelligentyetidiot
1 year ago

When,
by their foolish thirst for reputation, they [popular leaders] have created
among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them,
democracy in its turn is abolished, and changes into a rule of force and
violence. . . . For the people, having grown accustomed to feed
at the expense of others, and to depend for their livelihood on the property of
others, …degenerate into perfect savages, and find once more a master or
monarch. Polybius 264 -146 BC

MikeC711
MikeC711
1 year ago
I saw historians making this kind of comment back into the 1700s … but this shows that they were historians, not visionaries.
MBA SOFA
MBA SOFA
1 year ago

We can make a referendum with a simple proposal: Ginger haired people must pay 1000$ to blondes. The ourcome is clear, there are more blondes. Is this democratic or fair?

Politics is now a crazy thing. Majority voting to rob a minority. No rules, no laws, no justice for all.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  MBA SOFA
Historically, Democracy is known as mob rule.
Webej
Webej
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Not really. In Athens representatives were chosen by chance, b/c those who wanted power could not be trusted with it.
Democracy was a pejorative term (refers to the hicks).
Mob rule is known as ochlocracy.
Our system, with may the best man win, they would have called aristocracy. Aristocracy can select the rulers on the basis of heredity, or on the basis of popularity contests, or other selection mechanisms.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Webej
Thanks!
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Reply to  MBA SOFA
In pure democracies minorities are never protected. In the republican form of democracy they are protected by a written constitution supported by an independent court system.
hmk
hmk
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug78
The best example of democracy is two wolves and a lamb sitting down and voting on what to have for dinner.
MikeC711
MikeC711
1 year ago
Reply to  hmk
Yes, and a constitutional republic has that well armed lamb contesting the outcome.
hmk
hmk
1 year ago
Reply to  MikeC711
Exactly, well almost. The lamb would be protected by the rule of law in the constitution, while the 2A was added to protect us from the government first and the wolves second.
Bam_Man
Bam_Man
1 year ago
If you needed just one more reason to actually go ahead and leave the state of California…
grazzt
grazzt
1 year ago
Let me guess, corporations are exempt from this law? Or will they simply pay the $1k per year and save $?0k on the lower utility rate charge? Seems like a good deal to me. Everyone but those on welfare and SS pays more to ensure California businesses can operate at a lower cost.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  grazzt
Silly wrabbit, corporations are people.
Really8833
Really8833
1 year ago
Another level of ignorance and socialism in California. Let everyone pay for he lazy and useless. There should be only protections of electricity being cut off for the elderly and nothing else. If they actually do this, what they will find is the same thing that happens in everything they do. The people who do not have to pay for medical ins. fill the emergency rooms over a cold or a splinter, why those of us who pay high deductibles and work only go when we have to because we have to pay the bill. Give people free electricity and they will use 5 times more and not care one bit about conserving because if does not matter. They have zero incentive. The already overtaxed electrical grid will be worse off and brownouts will increase. I really wonder why people in California cannot grasp simple common sense ideas.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
I wonder what’s considered a household?
A single person – clearly just their income
A married couple – clearly it will be combined income
A unmarried couple with bill in 1 persons name – would this be combined income or not and under what cases would it not be?
Parents with adult kids at home – Would this be combined 3 or 4 incomes or just the parents incomes?
Roommates – What happens in shared accommodation situations, is it 1 person or all persons incomes?
Businesses / P.O. Box – What happens if the bill is in a Business name or what if I just use a P.O. Box for my tax return so it appears I don’t live there.
Webej
Webej
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
I already live in this situation, with regard to income tax, utilities, amenities, tax credits, etc.
Were one of my adult children to move in and has an income, I would lose my social security stipend.
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Ground Control to Major Mish. Are you watching the launch?
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Electric companies in California are screwed. They get blamed for fires caused by electricity and have to pay reparations.
The climate in California is years of drought followed by a very wet year with flooding. It’s always been this way. And after the wet year, there’s a lot of vegetative growth that dries out and provides extra fuel for the following wildfire season. Starting in the fall, they’ll have a terrible wildfire season and blame it all on climate change. The problem isn’t climate change. The problem is the climate is the same. California is in drought 80% of the time. It’s normal for them to be in drought.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
Thank you for the explanation.
The grass is greener in California but it’s only green about 5 weeks a year.
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
This is an outrage. They should be determining electricity bills by race and gender in addition to income. Someone screwed up by omitting the two other categories. Hopefully when Gavin comes back he will put it right.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug78
This is an inexplicit way of charging more based on race.
Really8833
Really8833
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
More likely charging less based on race equality. Minorities will be paying less.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug78
There should also be a discount based on political party.
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
If there is a discount by sexual orientation California would be 95% LGBT+. If the government has a proof test then it could get interesting.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug78
Perhaps not.
Most LGBTQ+++ folks seem to be pretty much a bunch of show-offs.
Ultracrepidarian
Ultracrepidarian
1 year ago
Rumor has it that the main reason Gavin Newsom is seeking the White House is that the cost of living in California has risen too high for him……
Avery
Avery
1 year ago
You had me at ‘California’.
shamrock
shamrock
1 year ago
This is not an idea the power companies cooked up. They are required by law to replace the current fixed monthly access charge to this variable rate based on 3 income levels, by 2024. The specific dollar amounts are their proposal to the regulatory agency. The cost of electricity per kilowatt hour will drop by 33% if the proposal is accepted.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  shamrock
You have a link to this law? I’ve seen this article on several sites now and not one mentioned any law forcing utilities to charge variable fees based on income.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Google is your friend.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
More:
Here’s how the fixed charges would work in the PG&E service territory. The numbers are based on a four-person household:
  • Households earning less than $28,000 a year would pay a fixed charge of $15 a month on their electric bills.
  • Households with annual income from $28,000 to $69,000 would pay $30 a month.
  • Households earning from $69,000 to $180,000 would pay $51 a month.
  • Those with incomes above $180,000 would pay $92 a month.

“These are not new charges, but a restructuring of the components of providing and delivering power,” PG&E stated in a post in the Currents section of the utility’s website.

The monthly bills of the future would have two components: the fixed charge based on household income levels and the electricity charge at a reduced rate that would fluctuate based on monthly energy consumption.

PG&E says many customers would ultimately pay less for electricity — although the distinct possibility remains that an unknown and potentially significant number of more affluent customers might wind up with even higher electric bills.

shamrock
shamrock
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
California assembly bill 205. link to leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
The bill would eliminate the cap on the amount of
the fixed charge that the PUC may authorize. The bill would require the
fixed charge to be established on an income-graduated basis, as
provided, with no fewer than 3 income thresholds so that low-income
ratepayers in each baseline
territory would realize a lower average monthly bill without making
any changes in usage. The bill would require the PUC, no later than July
1, 2024, to authorize a fixed charge for default residential rates. The
bill would prohibit the PUC from applying the composite tier method to
the treatment of any revenues resulting from any fixed charge adopted
pursuant to these provisions.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  shamrock
Exactly, this is apparently an actual law! But I don’t see how it will work successfully.
I know people here in CA who, during the winter (especially this last colder than usual one) have monthly PGE bills that range from $600-$1000. That’s one month! And many local cities/towns here are now mandating all electric service for new construction and major rebuilds, which will send bills even higher.
Really8833
Really8833
1 year ago
Reply to  shamrock
Thing is, this is a California law. So the problem is still with California politicians. And being an Engineer in the field I can promise you that Cost of electricity is not going to drop other than for those in the lower income level. Which still is not right. It is socialism. People should be expected to pay for what they use at the same rate. Why not just let them buy luxury cars at a 50% discount so the rest of us can pay 50% more. Anyone who can’t see this is ridiculous needs to stop talking.
Tawdzilla
Tawdzilla
1 year ago
Me thinks that charging a flat rate for electricity will lead to overconsumption, brown outs, black outs, and (drum roll)… higher prices.
shamrock
shamrock
1 year ago
Reply to  Tawdzilla
Kilowatt hour rates would drop by 33%, not 100%. So the unintended consequences of more electricity being demanded will be lower than you are thinking.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  Tawdzilla
It’s not a flat rate for electricity.
The article is about a fixed *minimum* fee you pay every month just to be a customer. It has nothing to do with using electricity. In essence they charge customers X amount of dollars a month to be a customer (all utilities do this). What’s different is that instead of charging $15 to everyone they want to charge some people more based on their income which is just crazy.
Really8833
Really8833
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Exactly
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Everyone is created equal.
However, some are created more equal than others.
George worked it out long ago.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Oink.
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Lol! California is going to modify how they charge for electricity! Next it could be bread! Its the end of the world! Run for your lives! The marxists, socialists and communists are coming for us all! Its going to lead to a depression, which is coming any day now!
Pardon me if I exaggerate how it reads to me, but my point is that I think you are overdoing this story just a tad.
Much ado about nothing as far as I can see. Assuming it even gets implemented.
Unless you are looking to profit from it of course.
California already has very high electricity and natural gas prices. Tourmaline is a big supplier of natural gas to California and is taking advantage of that high natural gas price. Tourmaline is a good stock to own to profit from California policies. I’m guessing that if this policy gets implemented, it will lead to greater use of natgas to generate more electricity to meet increasing demand.
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
I don’t eat bread. I only eat cake.
Really8833
Really8833
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
And you sir are wrong. And an one of those who probably think this is either a good thing or cannot see this is another step in the wrong direction for the state of California.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
Obviously, those that invest in foreign oil and gas must be taxed more heavily.
It’s only fair.
Metron9
Metron9
1 year ago
The Federal government is doing this with Medicare. If I’m poor enough I would pay 168 plus 57 (high deductible supplemental part F) for my part B plus 17 dollars for part D. Because I made a lot of money this years bill is 675 a month and I was forced to go on Medicare at 65. It’s more than my private insurance was. My wife’s private insurance is 650 a month. Together it’s what my original mortgage on my house was. No wonder nobody wants to make money anymore they take it all away, never enough.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Metron9
The Government doesn’t care about disincentives for the rich.
The Government cares about votes from the poor, and there are a lot more poor.
vboring
vboring
1 year ago
Utility rates are hard. Every decision produces winners and losers.
Rates that include a fixed connection charge are pretty normal.
By reducing variable c/kWh costs, they are reducing a barrier to buying EVs and heat pumps (winners) and asking high income people with gas heating to pay extra (losers), and reducing the value of residential solar who get paid on a net energy consumption basis (losers).
Rate structure changes like this are revenue-nuetral. Across all customers, the total cost won’t change unless the PUC separately approves a rate increase.
The only unusual part is tying the connection charge directly to income. There are many programs for low income customers that approximate the same effect. They’ve been around for decades. This could be cast as a way to reduce paperwork and ensure all eligible customers receive the benefits.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  vboring
“The only unusual part is tying the connection charge directly to income.
There are many programs for low income customers that approximate the
same effect. They’ve been around for decades. This could be cast as a
way to reduce paperwork and ensure all eligible customers receive the
benefits.”
It’s not just unusual, it’s unique.
More importantly, how exactly can paperwork be reduced when they already admit they need a new agency to track household income in order to charge each customer properly. That new agency is going to increase paperwork.
Plus of course no mention of how you get to fight this charge if you disagree with the household income assessment (ie what happens when you lose your job, do you immediately get relief on your charge).
There are as you say, already programs for low income. Let them continue to use those.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Everyone will have to share their tax return with their utility provider! LOL
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
I think that’s why they want another agency created to manage this. So they don’t have to do it themselves. Since Cali already has state taxes, the state already knows your income and could share that with another government agency which would then just tell the utilities how much to bill you.
worleyeoe
worleyeoe
1 year ago
The idiots running CA will stop at nothing to get everyone with money to up and leave.
Looking for the exodus to accelerate.
Dr Funkenstein
Dr Funkenstein
1 year ago
In 2050 Californians will be lighting their homes with candles and burning Buffalo chips for heat
Zardoz
Zardoz
1 year ago
Marxist would be not charging anyone anything, and expecting people to show up to work at the power plant for free.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Zardoz
You will own nothing and be schizophrenic.
RonJ
RonJ
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
That would make Big Pharma happy. An automatic revenue stream.
hamsaplo
hamsaplo
1 year ago
It’s worse than Marxist. It is robbery. This is like the BBC fees that people pay in England whether or not they use a television. The government patrols the streets checking for radiation from TV’s so that owners can be fined. And there is no appeal to having to pay the money. No way of connecting usage to fees. Highway robbery. Just hand over the money.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  hamsaplo
With modern TV’s and computer monitors being virtually indistinguishable, how do they know whether you have a TV or a computer monitor?
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  hamsaplo
Britain also allows electricity to be turned off easily for non-payment of bills. Saw a news story on this a while back.
They have boxes in the house and the utility people are allowed to come in and turn off the power with an override code. You are then on a pay-as-you-go basis and can buy power daily via a credit card! It was a wild story.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
This is why the good lord invented “jumpers.”
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Found a story on this:
——-
Call to end forced installation of UK prepayment meters after millions suffer without power
Report shows 3.2m people disconnected last year as they ran out of credit
Alex Lawson Energy correspondent
Wed 11 Jan 2023 17.15 EST
Ministers are being urged to stop the forced installation of prepayment meters after revelations that 3.2 million people – the equivalent of one person every 10 seconds – were left with cold and dark homes last year as they ran out of credit.
As energy prices surged this winter, suppliers have stepped up the use of court warrants to force their way into homes to install prepayment meters, with some magistrates approving hundreds of applications at a time. For homes with smart meters, the change can be made remotely without even needing a warrant.
An estimated 600,000 people were forced to make the switch away from credit meters after racking up debt with their energy supplier in 2022, compared with 380,000 in 2021, according to a major report by Citizens Advice, which is calling for an immediate ban on the use of court warrants. The charity fears a further 160,000 people could be switched by the end of winter if no further action is taken.
“There must be a total ban on energy companies forcing those already at breaking point on to prepayment meters,” said Clare Moriarty, the chief executive of Citizens Advice. “If the energy regulator doesn’t act, the government must intervene.”
Campaigners are warning of “disconnection by the back door”, with suppliers protecting their bottom line as consumers faced with cost of living rises struggle to top up and are cut off from heating and power.
Prepay meters charge for energy at a higher rate than contracts where the customer pays monthly or by direct debit, and people in debt are often left with no choice but to “self-disconnect”. For many, running out of credit is not a one-off event. More than 2 million people are being disconnected at least once a month, according to the report. A fifth of those on prepay report going without heat or light for at least 24 hours, unable to cook or wash.
Cocoa
Cocoa
9 months ago
Reply to  hamsaplo

As Californians get more efficient(with solar etc.) the utilities need a revenue stream. PGE corp, the holding company, is addicted to siphoning profits and money from PGE the utility(with Gavin Newsom’s help.) So, this has nothing to do with equity – it’s about a higher revenue stream for less service. Basically criminal

HippyDippy
HippyDippy
1 year ago
California already floated an exit tax. Not much of a prediction there.
Personally, I don’t see this government existing in 10 years. The only reason it’s still in existence now is because it’s such an accurate representative of the idiocy of the average person.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.