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:
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… pic.twitter.com/hWNfbWgXBO
— Supervisor Jim Desmond (@jim_desmond) November 7, 2023
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.
Simply, doesn’t that violate Proposition 218?