Would you be in favor or opposed to power bills being based on your income level?

[True Dough]

California is considering such a system.

Californians might soon get electric bills based on how much they make: The higher their income, the more they'll owe each month.

It's part of a plan to pay for modernizing California's creaky electricity system, whose downed power lines have been blamed for starting massive forest fires — and where an increasingly hotter and drier climate is pushing demand for energy ever higher. The new state law aims to make higher-income people shoulder a greater burden when it comes to paying for the power system's modernization, The Washington Post reports.

It doesn't totally take out of the equation how much power each household uses: Part of each bill will still be based on that. But each bill also will have "fixed charges" that will be set based on income.

Households with incomes under $28,000 would pay $15 a month in the Los Angeles area, for instance, according to the California Public Utilities Commission, which the Post cited. But households with incomes over $180,000 would pay $92 a month — a 144% difference. In San Diego, they'd pay $128 a month.

https://www.businessinsider.com/california-electric-bills-based-on-income-protests-environment-ev-2023-6

[live love laugh]

1. 👎🏽

[Elessar Zappa]

2. Interesting idea.

I’m not sure higher income people should pay more but I do like the idea of a discount for lower income.

[bottomofthehill]

3. Opposed.

I keep my house at 68 in the winter and 75/6 in the summer. I do laundry and run the dishwasher in the evening. I am a responsible consumer, why should I pay more based on my income. I try to keep my energy consumption down to save money. Because my wife and I work I should pay more for energy, I think not.

[ret5hd]

12. Not totally disagreeing but...

I think SOME thought should be given at some level (personal level, city level, etc) as to the future benefits…to all, individual and societal.

This is the very first I’ve heard of this, so I haven’t given it any thought. But I will say we (spouse and I) pay a higher electric rate than necessary to get our electricity from a provider that only gets its supply from “green” (I know I know, fellow DU’er Nnadir…it’s not really green) wind and solar sources. So KINDA the same thing, but voluntary.

[Timewas]

4. Sure

After PG&E gave all the money to their stock holders now they want to make the people pay more to make up for it. Back in the 70's they had the big drive to cut usage for the climate then they weren't making enough money so they got a raise in rates to make up for it. Typical.

[Lifeafter70]

26. PG&E wants us to pay for putting their lines underground

Something they were supposed to do years ago. A lot of the fires were due to their lines not being maintained. Now they want us to pay. So glad I only have them for gas.

[Scrivener7]

5. Basing them on usage would have almost the same effect

but would be more logical.

[bottomofthehill]

6. Thank you, yes. There is a logic to that.

[jimfields33]

7. Hell no!!!!!

I use very little electric but would have to pay more under this dumb proposal. I like people paying for stuff they use. If this passes, California will continue to lose population.

[Tickle]

36. Agree 👍 NT

[bucolic_frolic]

8. No. The masses at $15 would realize energy is cheap and waste it. This is a stupid idea.

I was always in favor of fines being based on income. Like traffic tickets. But not consumption goods.

[33taw]

9. Sounds like tax rates based on income.

Use and income make some sense.

[mvd]

10. Electric bills should certainly be limited for the low income

I am big on necessities not being cumbersome to get. I know from experience how these bills hurt.

[RainCaster]

11. Hell no

So glad I don't live there any more.

If they're going to go to a pay system like that, then they should let the state government take over the utilities. Eminent domain, folks.

[karynnj]

13. Mixed feeling, but I see a different way to frame the difference in cost

The costs for modernizing and improving the network need to be paid and many people would find the required extra cost unaffordable. I would prefer if they raised the cost for usage for everyone, but either in the bill reduced the costs using a sliding scale credit paid for by a fund coming from taxes or accomplished the same thing by billing at cost and having the state give people credits they could use to pay part of the bill.

Many states have credits that reduce property tax obligations based on income. A simple way to handle a credit would be to include that credit with the property tax credits without regard to the actual energy bill. Renters could get the credit as a monthly check. This would then give the person to conserve energy.

In this case, everyone is charged for energy based just on their usage.

[DFW]

14. And the extra money from the high earners goes to whom?

From the sound of it, right back into the pockets of the utilities. I oppose the notion that the utilities get to milk the public in order to pay for their past inefficiencies. Schemes like this fall into a category a recent German politician called „Neidsteuer,“ or „Jealousy Tax.“ i.e. there‘s someone out there who either has or makes more than I do. There must be a way to take it from him.

[Joinfortmill]

15. Nay, make it a percentage of their power bills. That would be more equitable.

[msongs]

16. first make utilities publicly owned. then see about costs nt

[tinrobot]

32. LADWP is publicly owned

It's the largest municipally owned utility in the US.

They're one of the utilities considering these charges.

[Enter stage left]

17. In Finland if you receive a traffic ticket...

the fine is based on your disposable income.

Electricity is a different issue, but if you have a 10,000 sq ft house running A/C all summer long, and heat all winter long, maybe we ought to look at disposable income to set rates.

Some states are already penalizing heavy water users, and maybe electricity could be next.

Just asking!

[doc03]

18. Hell no. California is just as crazy to the left as Florida is to the right. I don't know

how anyone short of a millionaire can survive there.

[madville]

28. I only made $130k when I worked in the Bay Area

Luckily I was single and no kids at the time so I could just rent an old small one bedroom apartment. No way I could afford to buy anything there.

[haele]

19. No. Most utility companies already have programs for low income.

Instead, have localities provide subsidies for low income households in high utility cost locations. That generally limits the ability of sub-leasers (Rent mates/Couch surfer households) from using the primary lease holder's only income as the baseline income.
This happens a lot in San Diego and other college locations.

Haele

[ripcord]

20. This is right up there with VMT

[dembotoz]

21. i strive to lower my consumption

if lower income would get a lower rate but not a flat rate.

my neighbor makes less than i do but runs his a/c all the damn time...I hear the unit.

i have not turned mine on yet. Perhaps lower rate per kilowatt used. i think i should get a reward for using less..
a lower bill works for me

[TexasDem69]

22. Opposed

California has some really dumb ideas

[EYESORE 9001]

35. ...

[DemocraticPatriot]

23. Maybe so, but I would be much in favor of a system that charged for what you actually USE,

without these large monthly charges just for the 'privilege' of being their customer for another month...

I am very frugal with my electricity, I don't leave lights on all over, I unplug "vampire devices"...

However, the "customer charge" every month (what they charge you just for being hooked up to their system) here is about $20---
and my usage monthly is also about $20.....

seems out of whack to me. Surely they could recalculate their charges to actual usage only--

but they seem to want to screw you and keep income coming in from you,
even if you happened to use no electricity at all, that month...

same for water and natural gas...

Thus they penalize those who may not use a lot.

And this is through the city-owned electrical system, not some "for profit" corporation...

[lapfog_1]

24. if the power grid and generation was OWNED by taxpayers

and paid for out of the CA general fund... then, of course, the higher income you have the more tax you pay... therefore the power delivered is paid for on a sliding income scale.

OTOH... that means the power is free (much like the highways and streets).

We need to encourage people (rich and poor) to be efficient in use of power. That argues for paying for power at some rate as is comes over the grid.

OTOH, power is essential to life so the poor should not be penalized for needing power to heat their homes or cook their food.

I see competing goals and no answer.

Tax payer owned and operated with specific power rations (X number of KWatt/hours are free)... and if you save more than X, you can trade or sell the excess to other users... Cap and trade... with every decreasing amounts of power that is free.

[roamer65]

25. I'd be for a top marginal income tax rate of 50 percent, for starters.

Then larger assistance to lower income folks who qualify.

It’s time for the wealthy to pay their fair share.

[flvegan]

27. Since it's just the monthly service charge, not usage, I don't hate it.

Not that you'd have any idea that was the idea based on BusinessInsider's bullshit clickbaity headline. Not quite sure why folks on DU still link that shit here.

[madville]

29. This is just the service fee, still charge for usage

Basically this is an additional charge on top of what they’re already getting billed for usage.

[Hortensis]

30. Opposed for people who can pay for their own use,

FOR for those who have trouble maintaining their habitat to standard or necessary personal comfort levels. Large areas of the country already have that. All should.

I am all for eliminating the ultrawealthy classes entirely.

But I oppose the mentality of wanting laws to require people who have more to pay their bills just because they have more.

An inevitable result would be loss of personal choice, controls imposed even though personal needs to vary.

And after all, if others are paying, where is the incentive to save on energy, put on a sweater and move the thermostat below 80 (!), plant a tree and open windows in that?

We’ve had polls here that revealed that large numbers keep their HVAC going at very high rates all day and year round.

Paying our own ways where possible will enable us to have our own ways — until other controls on energy overuse kick in, and most of us are fully capable of doing that.

Here in the south I know plenty of people who would never want either handouts or takings, as the case may be, because that is their way. And a few who’d freeze first. In a region where a good majority was fine with it I might well be also.

[JanMichael]

31. I sometimes wonder if I am on a Republican-lite site.

[GoodRaisin]

33. I favor government assistance for lower incomes.

Perhaps look at funding from taxing churches who are supposed to be helping the poor anyway.

[Texasgal]

34. Mixed on this..

Our GRID failed us when we needed it the most. People died, money or not.

I'd rather see incentive for people that conserve.