Please tell your friends about federated social media site that speaks several fediverse protocols thus serving as a hub uniting them, hubzilla.eskimo.com, also check out friendica.eskimo.com, federated
macroblogging social media site, mastodon.eskimo.com a federated microblogging site, and yacy.eskimo.com an uncensored federated search engine. All Free!
This sucks! Southern California Edison is changing their fee structure to lower bills for people who use a lot of electricity and raise them for people who use a little.
If this theory is correct you're collateral damage.
People with solar look like they're using less because some of their use is offset by local production, to the utility company someone with low use and someone with self production look the same.
It could also be there's a bunch of fixed costs for the grid and the marginal cost of adding another kWh isn't that large.
So if they're trying to spread out the fixed cost by customer, people using fewer kWhs pay a larger fee per kWh to reach the same total fixed cost as someone who is using more and can spread the same target fixed fee over more kWhs.
@alienghic There is some fixed cost to maintaining the grid, but it seems like people who have a lot of solar are putting less wear and tear on the grid, so they should pay less.
It would be really simple to just charge people who use a lot of electricity more money, since they're the ones benefiting the most from the use of the grid
@alienghic The new energy fees seem broadly structured to promote fairness. Households that can afford solar panels typically have greater wealth and access to resources relative to large families living in less energy-efficient homes struggling to rely on air conditioning to maintain safe living conditions.
By slightly increasing fees for solar users and reducing costs for high-energy households, the policy shifts some of the financial burden from those whose energy costs are a larger share of their budget towards those who are more able to absorb such costs.
The approach seems well-intentioned, but it does kinda have the side effects of punishing those with no solar panels and naturally low energy usage, while benefiting those who can easily afford the costs of higher energy usage.
@lety That's the line that the utilities have promoting, and it's mostly nonsense. They just want to keep extracting wealth out of people who are now paying them less because of solar. They don't care about fairness. They care about shareholders.
I mean, fair point and that's entirely possible. I'm no fan of SCE, but I am compromised in this discussion as someone living with a multi-generational household whose entire neighborhood stands to benefit from this change.
That said, SCE has raised rates for fuck all reasons in the past, even earlier this year, just to cover legal fees and boost shareholder returns. My first instinct isn't to assume they're doing the same thing here, by redistributing fees across customers with different income levels.
Southern California Edison isn't exactly known for their subtlety.
@lety Their first tactic with solar was saying people with rooftop solar were freeloaders and that they should be able to charge them more. That fell flat, so they put their PR hats on and came back with the messaging they're using now about rooftop solar being a giveaway to the wealthy on the backs of the poor. This time it seemed to work because the legislature has mostly backed them even if the substance of what they're pushing is the same.
You seem a lot more well-read about this than I am, so I digress.
I was just sharing my perspective as someone whose friends and family, all with incomes closer to the federal poverty level than the LA County median, will benefit from this change in the way they're marketing.
I freely admit that it's possible my experience is the outlier here and that you're the median customer they're scamming.
Which, reasoning leading up to this aside, that sucks. I'm sorry to hear your bills went up when you don't even have solar panels.
@lety The legislature did take up a bill to base this usage fee on income level, but i guess enough people with money complained that they backed down. It would make a lot more sense.
I wouldn't even be bothered if I paid more because my income was higher. It just irks me that my bill is going up because i use less.
Diane
in reply to Emily Velasco • • •Emily Velasco
in reply to Diane • • •Diane
in reply to Emily Velasco • • •If this theory is correct you're collateral damage.
People with solar look like they're using less because some of their use is offset by local production, to the utility company someone with low use and someone with self production look the same.
It could also be there's a bunch of fixed costs for the grid and the marginal cost of adding another kWh isn't that large.
So if they're trying to spread out the fixed cost by customer, people using fewer kWhs pay a larger fee per kWh to reach the same total fixed cost as someone who is using more and can spread the same target fixed fee over more kWhs.
Emily Velasco
in reply to Diane • • •@alienghic There is some fixed cost to maintaining the grid, but it seems like people who have a lot of solar are putting less wear and tear on the grid, so they should pay less.
It would be really simple to just charge people who use a lot of electricity more money, since they're the ones benefiting the most from the use of the grid
Lety Does Stuff
in reply to Emily Velasco • • •@alienghic The new energy fees seem broadly structured to promote fairness. Households that can afford solar panels typically have greater wealth and access to resources relative to large families living in less energy-efficient homes struggling to rely on air conditioning to maintain safe living conditions.
By slightly increasing fees for solar users and reducing costs for high-energy households, the policy shifts some of the financial burden from those whose energy costs are a larger share of their budget towards those who are more able to absorb such costs.
The approach seems well-intentioned, but it does kinda have the side effects of punishing those with no solar panels and naturally low energy usage, while benefiting those who can easily afford the costs of higher energy usage.
Emily Velasco
in reply to Lety Does Stuff • • •Lety Does Stuff
in reply to Emily Velasco • • •I mean, fair point and that's entirely possible. I'm no fan of SCE, but I am compromised in this discussion as someone living with a multi-generational household whose entire neighborhood stands to benefit from this change.
That said, SCE has raised rates for fuck all reasons in the past, even earlier this year, just to cover legal fees and boost shareholder returns. My first instinct isn't to assume they're doing the same thing here, by redistributing fees across customers with different income levels.
Southern California Edison isn't exactly known for their subtlety.
Emily Velasco
in reply to Lety Does Stuff • • •Lety Does Stuff
in reply to Emily Velasco • • •You seem a lot more well-read about this than I am, so I digress.
I was just sharing my perspective as someone whose friends and family, all with incomes closer to the federal poverty level than the LA County median, will benefit from this change in the way they're marketing.
I freely admit that it's possible my experience is the outlier here and that you're the median customer they're scamming.
Which, reasoning leading up to this aside, that sucks. I'm sorry to hear your bills went up when you don't even have solar panels.
Emily Velasco
in reply to Lety Does Stuff • • •@lety The legislature did take up a bill to base this usage fee on income level, but i guess enough people with money complained that they backed down. It would make a lot more sense.
I wouldn't even be bothered if I paid more because my income was higher. It just irks me that my bill is going up because i use less.