Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. "Based on your ability to pay."

"Based on your ability to pay."

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
8 Posts 6 Posters 69 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • George KG Offline
    George KG Offline
    George K
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    California utility companies propose charging customers based on how much money they make

    Three major utility companies in California are looking to restructure customer billing, and part of that means customers could be charged based on how much money they make.

    Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric filed a joint proposal this week for a flat-rate charge based on income.

    The plan would break monthly bills in two parts: The fixed-income rate, plus a reduced usage charge based on consumption.

    Under the proposal, it would cost as little as $15 a month for low-income households and up to $85 more per month for households making more than $180,000 a year.

    While that specific cost would go up, the actual electricity rate would go down by a third. It means customers could control their bill somewhat - if they're able to reduce electricity use.

    The income-based bill proposal is part of the companies' compliance with legislation passed by the California state government last year requiring these types of plans for utilities.

    I have no problem with charging a flat rate for everyone, and then adding a "usage" fee on top of that, based on...usage.

    But the "flat rate" is income-based?

    "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

    The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

    1 Reply Last reply
    • LuFins DadL Offline
      LuFins DadL Offline
      LuFins Dad
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      Equity!

      The Brad

      1 Reply Last reply
      • jon-nycJ Online
        jon-nycJ Online
        jon-nyc
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        Not ok.

        Only non-witches get due process.

        • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
        1 Reply Last reply
        • LuFins DadL Offline
          LuFins DadL Offline
          LuFins Dad
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          I’m thinking that California is pushing down the price that they are allowed to charge, they aren’t making the money they need to for infrastructure improvements, and this is the solution that they are coming up with. I simply cannot believe that a business wants to charge based on income levels.

          Will Gas be next? Telecommunications? Housing?

          The Brad

          1 Reply Last reply
          • CopperC Offline
            CopperC Offline
            Copper
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            Delegating taxation authority to utilities.

            1 Reply Last reply
            • JollyJ Offline
              JollyJ Offline
              Jolly
              wrote on last edited by
              #6

              People need to pay their fair share.

              Every man a king!

              “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

              Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

              1 Reply Last reply
              • jon-nycJ Online
                jon-nycJ Online
                jon-nyc
                wrote on last edited by
                #7

                It’s basically suggesting that utilities get taxing authority.

                Only non-witches get due process.

                • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                1 Reply Last reply
                • taiwan_girlT Offline
                  taiwan_girlT Offline
                  taiwan_girl
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #8

                  Goofy idea. I believe that many/most? US utility companies have things in place to help low income personnel.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  Reply
                  • Reply as topic
                  Log in to reply
                  • Oldest to Newest
                  • Newest to Oldest
                  • Most Votes


                  • Login

                  • Don't have an account? Register

                  • Login or register to search.
                  • First post
                    Last post
                  0
                  • Categories
                  • Recent
                  • Tags
                  • Popular
                  • Users
                  • Groups