Friday, October 25, 2024
66.6 F
Oxnard
More

    Latest Posts

    Setting Brushfires of Freedom by Don Jans

    Another Hugo Chavez-Style Idea On Electricity Rates From California’s One-Party Regime

    Opinion by Monica Showalter

    There’s a California proposal to charge people for their electricity based not on how much they use, but their income. Only in California. From Monica Showalter at americanthinker.com:

    Cash-strapped California has proposed to set electricity rates based on one’s income, not one’s consumption.

    What could go wrong?

    According to San Diego’s right-leaning county supervisor, Jim Desmond:

    His tweet begins:

    Earlier today, I had the opportunity to participate in the California Public Utilities Commission public meeting regarding the proposed new fixed-rate electricity plan. This proposal has sparked significant concerns, particularly for the residents of San Diego. If you’re unfamiliar with this plan, let me provide a breakdown of its essential components and the potential implications it holds for our community. The proposed fixed-rate bill fundamentally operates on an income-based charging model, where the more one earns, the higher the flat-rate electricity charges. This scheme would impose fixed monthly charges based on your income before a single kilowatt-hour is used. Here’s a breakdown of what this could mean for San Diegans: *Households earning between $28,000 to $69,000 would face a monthly charge of $34. *Those with incomes ranging from $69,000 to $180,000 would see a monthly charge of $73. *Households earning above $180,000 would encounter a monthly charge of $128. Median-income households in San Diego would end up paying $876 annually for electricity, irrespective of their actual consumption. It’s also ridiculous that individuals who have invested in residential solar won’t be exempt from these fixed charges.

    So if you’ve been foolish enough to invest in solar energy as the state encouraged you to do in the name of saving the planet, hoping that $7,000 investment in the roof plates you shelled out for would eventually pay for itself through lower electricity rates, well, too bad about you.

    Continue reading

    - Advertisement -

    1 COMMENT

    0 0 votes
    Article Rating
    Subscribe
    Notify of
    guest

    1 Comment
    Newest
    Oldest Most Voted
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    Ray Blattel
    Ray Blattel
    11 months ago

    Simply, doesn’t that violate Proposition 218?

    Latest Posts

    advertisement

    Don't Miss

    Subscribe

    To receive the news in your inbox

    1
    0
    Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
    ()
    x