[dragonwriter]

> There is not enough electricity for everybody, and it seems like conservation is not an option.

That is not the issue. The issue is that distributed generation (i.e., rooftop solar) has become so popular that charging only by per-kW charges has become a subsidy from working class (who are less likely to participate in such generation) to wealthier segments who do.

> So these companies will try to squeeze the working class even more.

This proposal would reduce total bills for the working class, by splitting the rate into a mix of fixed fee and a (lower than current) is per-kW rate, and giving the working class a discount on the fixed fee.

It would raise total costs for those generating their own power (because of lower per-kW rates) and for the wealthy (who would pay above the average cost on the fixed fee, and particularly on people who are both.)

This would reduce the incentive to new distributed generation slightly (but then, given that both widespread adoption has been achieved and there is now a residential construction mandate for that, the effect of incentives is less.)

[vladslav]

> This proposal would reduce total bills for the working class.

I sure hope so, but I still doubt whether it will happen. I'm sorry for my ignorance on the topic, and I need to research it more. But it is counter-intuitive to me.

We pay much more than the rest of the country already. We are the utility's source of revenue. We should get a fair price if we generate enough electricity through solar and other means by switching to market rates.

Why can't they just adjust the expense for those who generate electricity? Or directly lower the incentive by removing tax cuts and credits since the widespread adoption is ongoing anyway. I am still trying to understand why I have to share costs with wealthy people without clear benefits.

[dragonwriter]

> I am still trying to understand why I have to share costs with wealthy people without clear benefits.

You aren’t sharing costs with wealthy people.

The proposal is to split rates into fixed connection costs and variable electricity costs, rather than, as the status quo does, lumping it all into the latter and setting rates high enough that on average the connection costs are covered by the surplus of the per-kW charges.

The effect of the status quo is that net metering over-rewards net-metered distributed generators (which was a plus to drive adoption, but no longer needed an excess incentive because of widespread adoption and a construction mandate) but it also creates an artificial disincentive to moving residential natural gas use to cleaner electric and against moving gasoline vehicle use to cleaner BEVs.

Dropping the per-kW rates and separating out the connection charge deals with that problem.

> Why can't they just adjust the expense for those who generate electricity? Or directly lower the incentive by removing tax cuts and credits since the widespread adoption is ongoing anyway.

Because distributed generation is only part of the issue, and that doesn’t deal with the disincentived to electrification of current fossil fuel use created by the currently-inflated per-kWh charge.

[riku_iki]

> We should get a fair price if we generate enough electricity through solar and other means by switching to market rates.

proposal asks you to pay not for electricity, but for maintaining grid infra, which they keep for you even you don't utilize it much. Cut yourself from the grid and you will pay nothing.

[hightrix]

> This proposal would reduce total bills for the working class.

Not hardly. 180k household income is working class in California. This will drastically increase bills for many working class folks, those same working class that has been screwed over already with the lie sold about solar reducing costs. Because let’s be realistic here, a vast majority of people that installed solar did it for electricity bill reduction. It did, until this years.

This state is simply and completely captured by industry. We should not be passing laws to boost profit for a for-profit company.